(Special Issue) The Disappearance of the “Course of Study”– A Discussion of Its Value Using Bruner and Dewey as Examples
Author: Daoyong Ding (Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University)
Vol.&No.：Vol. 71, No. 1
Date：March 2026
Pages：1-35
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202603_71(1).0001
Abstract：
Main Argument
This paper examines the concept of the “course of study” (COS) in education, a term that appears in the works of John Dewey and Jerome Bruner but has vanished mainly in Chinese editions of their works due to translation issues. The author addresses this problem by clarifying the historical meaning of COS and exploring its educational value through the examples of Dewey’s and Bruner’s educational experiments. By comparing Dewey’s laboratory school and Bruner’s MACOS project, the paper shows that each educator’s treatment of the course of study reflects different views on the subject matter, the teacher’s role, and the student’s role. Through this comparative analysis, the author argues for recognizing the value of COS as a bridge between educational theory and classroom practice.
Historical Background of the “Course of Study”
In the early 20th century United States, COS had a well-established meaning as a formal curriculum guide issued by state, county, or local education authorities. A COS was typically a printed document that outlined, for a specific subject and time frame, what content to teach, which textbooks to use, and in what sequence, thereby providing structure and support for teachers’ instruction. This concept was not identical to “curriculum” but rather a concrete plan or syllabus to guide the curriculum implementation. Thus, a school could have an excellent COS but a poorly implemented curriculum, or vice versa, underscoring that a course of study was a distinct entity focused on planning and guidance.
Throughout the early 1900s, COS documents were central to curriculum reform efforts in the U.S. educational system. By the 1920s and 1930s, researchers undertook large-scale evaluations of existing courses of study. A typical COS contained lists of topics per grade and detailed subtopics, learning objectives, and suggested classroom activities and resources, such as textbooks, to support teachers. This historical context establishes COS as a tangible cornerstone of curriculum design in the early 20th century.
By the mid-20th century, however, the prominence of the course of study began to wane. The Progressive Education movement brought skepticism toward rigid, centralised curriculum guides. Progressive educators grew “disappointed” and even “hostile” to the traditional COS, which they saw as overly authoritative, “top-down” prescriptions that left little autonomy for teachers. In many cases, courses of study were developed hierarchically by superintendents or committees with minimal teacher input, reflecting the era’s administrative culture. This approach conflicted with emerging educational ideals that favored teacher professionalism, child-centered pedagogy, and flexibility. Progressive critics argued that a one-size-fits-all course of study could not accommodate individual children’s needs or innovative teaching methods. Moreover, the fact that many early 20th-century teachers had limited training (as later noted by scholars like Shulman) meant that simply handing them a detailed COS might have been considered necessary at first. Still, it also underscored teachers’ exclusion from curriculum design. Over time, the term “course of study” fell out of vogue in the U.S., often replaced by the broader notion of “curriculum” or new concepts of curriculum guides. This decline in usage likely contributed to the translation problems in Chinese: by the time Dewey’s and Bruner’s works were translated, Chinese scholars were less familiar with COS as a distinct term, leading them to translate it inconsistently or merge it with “curriculum”.
Theoretical Perspectives: Dewey and Bruner
John Dewey viewed the relationship between the child’s experiences and organised subject matter as a dynamic interplay. He famously sought to “psychologise” the curriculum content, meaning that subject matter should be transformed into forms that connect with the learner’s interests and experiences. In Dewey’s Laboratory School in Chicago, he and his colleagues experimented with a curriculum that started from the child’s perspective and gradually introduced meaningfully the organized knowledge of the disciplines. Dewey did use the term “course of study” in his writings, but in a nuanced way. Dewey’s theoretical perspective on COS was that it should not be a rigid syllabus imposed on teachers, but a flexible guide grown out of and constantly adjusted to student experiences. However, Dewey’s approach placed a heavy responsibility on the teacher: the teacher in a Deweyan setting had to deeply understand the subject matter and the child’s needs to create that connection. Dewey did not emphasize external subject-matter experts designing the COS for the teacher; instead, the teacher was expected to be the mediator who translates content into experience. This approach reflects Dewey’s democratic and child-centered ethos, but it implicitly assumes a high level of teacher expertise to implement the curriculum in the intended way successfully.
Jerome Bruner felt that Dewey’s focus on justifying knowledge through its relation to the child’s social experience misconstrued the nature of knowledge. Bruner argued that knowledge's unity and value lie in its internal structure. Thus, Bruner prioritized the logical structure of knowledge (the concepts and principles of a discipline) and sought ways to make these accessible to children, rather than starting from the child’s whims. In Bruner’s MACOS, the content was chosen for its disciplinary importance (e.g., fundamental anthropological concepts about human nature), not primarily for its immediate familiarity to a child. However, Bruner did not ignore the psychological side: he believed these concepts could be taught through engaging materials (like film-based case studies of different cultures, inquiry-based activities, etc.) and that with proper support, students would indeed find them interesting. Bruner introduced a collaborative model in the COS: subject experts and teachers work in tandem. The COS (like MACOS) became a “platform” where scholars and teachers meet– experts contribute content structure and broader vision, while teachers contribute knowledge of learners and context. Bruner provided a curriculum framework that integrated expert knowledge with pedagogical guidance, inviting teachers to participate but not to shoulder the design alone. The result was a course of study that was neither purely top-down nor purely teacher-made, but a hybrid designed to ensure academic rigor while remaining teachable and adaptable in real classrooms.
Key Findings from the Comparative Analysis
The paper’s analysis of Dewey and Bruner’s treatment of the course of study yields several key findings and insights:
• Distinct Meaning of COS: Unlike the broad curriculum (which encompasses the entire learning experience), a COS was a tangible product– a printed guide or syllabus prepared by educational authorities to direct teaching content and sequence. This distinction, well understood in Dewey and Bruner’s time, has been blurred or lost in later educational discourse, especially in Chinese translations where COS was often rendered simply as “curriculum”. Recognizing this distinction is crucial: as Caswell argued, a good COS can support a good curriculum but does not guarantee it, implying that the design of a COS is a unique task in curriculum work.
• Historical Trajectory and Disappearance: COS was once central to curriculum reform and development, attracting the attention of scholars, administrators, and teachers alike. However, over time, the concept faded from prominence, especially with the rise of progressive education ideals that criticized the top-down “teacher-proof” approach inherent in many COS. By the mid-20th century, the focus in curriculum theory shifted away from designing courses of study towards broader questions of curriculum theory and understanding. This shift contributed to translators and educators paying scant attention to COS as a term, effectively causing its “disappearance” in non-English contexts. The disappearance is symptomatic of a broader change: curriculum scholars moved away from hands-on curriculum design (“curriculum development”) toward theoretical or interpretive work, which the author finds problematic.
• Divergent Philosophies – Dewey vs. Bruner: How Dewey and Bruner each engaged with COS reflects their different resolutions of the psychological-logical problem. Dewey’s stance was to trust teachers to adapt subject matter to the child– essentially attempting to fuse the logical and psychological through skilled teaching grounded in students’ experiences. Bruner’s approach demonstrates an intermediary position: rather than leaving the entire task of reconciling child and subject to individual teachers (Dewey’s approach) or enforcing a strict syllabus (the old COS approach), his COS design brought experts and teachers together in the curriculum development process. Dewey’s model risks overburdening teachers and relies on exceptional teacher competency. In contrast, while still challenging, Bruner’s model provides more structured support and acknowledges teachers’ need to learn the content’s structure.
• The Educational Value of COS: Both Dewey and Bruner, despite their differences, demonstrated the power of engaging directly in COS design: their theoretical ideas did not remain abstract but were embodied in the courses of study they crafted. In doing so, they directly influenced teachers’ teaching and students’ learning via these guides, making COS a conduit through which educational philosophy could impact classroom practice. The findings suggest that when educational thinkers create a COS, it becomes a “platform” for dialogue among theorists, subject experts, teachers, and even the public about what and how to teach. This practical engagement can lead to innovations and clashes of ideas– in other words, the COS can be a site of curricular struggle and progress, where different visions of education are negotiated and tested. The author highlights that losing sight of such a concrete instrument means losing an opportunity for educational research to shape practice directly.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the paper argues that the disappearance of the “course of study” as a recognized concept is a loss to the field of education, and it calls for a renewed appreciation of COS’s value in bridging theory and practice. The analysis of Dewey and Bruner’s work illustrates that COS was a pivotal tool for implementing educational philosophy, allowing ideas to be refined in real school settings. When Dewey and Bruner engaged with COS design, they acted as theorists and curriculum developers, translating their ideas into actionable form for teachers. This engagement is increasingly rare today, as many modern curriculum scholars focus on high-level theory (“understanding” curriculum) rather than the hands-on development of curriculum materials. The author challenges the view of some contemporary theorists (such as Pinar et al.) who declared “curriculum development, born in 1918, died in 1969”, implying that the era of actively designing curricula had ended. On the contrary, the author contends that curriculum development remains crucial and should not be considered obsolete. The shift from practical curriculum design to purely theoretical work is seen as an unfortunate “self-imposed exile” of curriculum scholars.
Keywords：COS, J. Bruner, J. Dewey, MACOS, Lab School
《Full Text》
References：布魯納（1973）。教育過程（上海師範大學外國教育研究室，譯）。上海人民。（原著出版於1960年）
【Bruner, J. (1973). The process of education (Foreign Education Research Office of Shanghai Normal University, Trans.). People’s Publishing House of Shanghai. (Original work published 1960)】
布魯納（1978）。教育的過程（陳伯璋、陳柏達，譯）。世界文物。（原著出版於1960年）
【Bruner, J. (1978). The process of education (B. Chen & B. Chen, Trans.). World Heritage. (Original work published 1960)】
布魯納（1989a）。教育過程（邵瑞珍，譯）。載於邵瑞珍（編），布魯納教育論著選（頁1-86）。人民教育出版社。（原著出版於1960年）
【Bruner, J. (1989a). The process of education (R. Shao, Trans.). In R. Shao (Ed.), Selected works of Jerome Bruner on education (pp.1-86). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1960)】
布魯納（1989b）。教學論探討（張渭城、何光榮、沈叔平、錢惠濂，譯）。載於邵瑞珍等（編），布魯納教育論著選（頁87-262）。人民教育。（原著出版於1966年）
【Bruner, J. (1989b). Toward a theory of instruction (W. Zhang, G. He, S. Shen, & H. Qian, Trans.). In R. Shao (Ed.), Selected works of Jerome Bruner on education (pp. 87-262). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1966)】
布魯納（1989c）。教育的適合性（邵瑞珍，譯）。載於邵瑞珍等（編），布魯納教育論著選（頁263-427）。人民教育。（原著出版於1971年）
【Bruner, J. (1989c). The process of education (R. Shao, Trans.). In R. Shao (Ed.), Selected works of Jerome Bruner on education (pp.263-427). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1971)】
布魯納（1990）。杜威之後又是什麼？（吳棠，譯）。載於瞿葆奎（主編），教育學文集：美國教育改革（頁201-214）。人民教育。（原著出版於1962年）
【Bruner, J. (1990). After John Dewey, What? (T. Wu, Trans.). In B. Qu (Ed.), Selected essays on education: Educational reform in the United States (pp. 201-214). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1962)】
» More
一、中文文獻
布魯納（1973）。教育過程（上海師範大學外國教育研究室，譯）。上海人民。（原著出版於1960年）
【Bruner, J. (1973). The process of education (Foreign Education Research Office of Shanghai Normal University, Trans.). People’s Publishing House of Shanghai. (Original work published 1960)】
布魯納（1978）。教育的過程（陳伯璋、陳柏達，譯）。世界文物。（原著出版於1960年）
【Bruner, J. (1978). The process of education (B. Chen & B. Chen, Trans.). World Heritage. (Original work published 1960)】
布魯納（1989a）。教育過程（邵瑞珍，譯）。載於邵瑞珍（編），布魯納教育論著選（頁1-86）。人民教育出版社。（原著出版於1960年）
【Bruner, J. (1989a). The process of education (R. Shao, Trans.). In R. Shao (Ed.), Selected works of Jerome Bruner on education (pp.1-86). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1960)】
布魯納（1989b）。教學論探討（張渭城、何光榮、沈叔平、錢惠濂，譯）。載於邵瑞珍等（編），布魯納教育論著選（頁87-262）。人民教育。（原著出版於1966年）
【Bruner, J. (1989b). Toward a theory of instruction (W. Zhang, G. He, S. Shen, & H. Qian, Trans.). In R. Shao (Ed.), Selected works of Jerome Bruner on education (pp. 87-262). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1966)】
布魯納（1989c）。教育的適合性（邵瑞珍，譯）。載於邵瑞珍等（編），布魯納教育論著選（頁263-427）。人民教育。（原著出版於1971年）
【Bruner, J. (1989c). The process of education (R. Shao, Trans.). In R. Shao (Ed.), Selected works of Jerome Bruner on education (pp.263-427). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1971)】
布魯納（1990）。杜威之後又是什麼？（吳棠，譯）。載於瞿葆奎（主編），教育學文集：美國教育改革（頁201-214）。人民教育。（原著出版於1962年）
【Bruner, J. (1990). After John Dewey, What? (T. Wu, Trans.). In B. Qu (Ed.), Selected essays on education: Educational reform in the United States (pp. 201-214). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1962)】
布魯納（1997）。教學論（邵瑞珍，譯）。五南。（原著出版於1966年）
【Bruner, J. (1997). Toward a theory of instruction (R. Shao, Trans.). Wu-Nan Book. (Original work published 1966)】
布魯納（2007）。教學論（姚梅林、郭安，譯）。輕工業。（原著出版於1966年）
【Bruner, J. (2007). Toward a theory of instruction (M. Yao & A. Guo, Trans.). China Light Industry Press. (Original work published 1966)】
布魯納（2011）。教育過程（黃小鵬，譯）。載於宋文里、黃小鵬（編），布魯納教育文化觀（頁1-86）。首都師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1960年）
【Bruner, J. (2011). The process of education (X. Huang, Trans.). In W. Song & X. Huang (Eds.), Bruner’s views on education and culture (pp. 1-86). Capital Normal University Press. (Original work published 1960)】
杜威（1928）。民本主義與教育（鄒恩潤，譯）。商務印書館。（原著出版於1916年）
【Dewey, J. (1928). Democracy and education (E. Zou, Trans.). Commercial Press. (Original work published 1916)】
杜威（1989）。民主主義與教育（林寶山，譯）。五南。（原著出版於1916年）
【Dewey, J. (1989). Democracy and education (B. Lin, Trans.). Wu-Nan Book. (Original work published 1916)】
杜威（1990）。民主主義與教育（王承緒，譯）。人民教育。（原著出版於1916年）
【Dewey, J. (1990). Democracy and education (C. Wang, Trans.). People’s Education Press. (Original work published 1916)】
杜威（1996）。民主與教育（林玉體，譯）。師大書苑。（原著出版於1916年）
【Dewey, J. (1996). Democracy and education (Y. Lin, Trans.). Lucky Bookstore. (Original work published 1916)】
杜威（2006）。民主與教育（薛絢，譯）。網路與書。（原著出版於1916年）
【Dewey, J. (2006). Democracy and education (X. Xue, Trans.). Net and Books Press. (Original work published 1916)】
杜威（2010）。教育的心理學基礎（楊小微、羅德紅，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（早期第五卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1898年）
【Dewey, J. (2010). Review of psychologic foundations of education by William Torrey Harris (X. Yang & D. Luo, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The early works of John Dewey (Vol. 5). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1898)】
杜威（2012a）。學校與社會（劉時工，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第一卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1899年）
【Dewey, J. (2012a). The school and society (S. Liu, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 1). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1899)】
杜威（2012b）。關於初等學校（白玉國，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第一卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1901年）
【Dewey, J. (2012b). The university elementary school (Y. Bai, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 1). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1901)】
杜威（2012c）。芝加哥大學教育學院（公報）（張留華，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第二卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1902年）
【Dewey, J. (2012c). The University of Chicago School of Education (L. Zhang, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 2). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1902)】
杜威（2012d）。兒童與課程（張留華，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第二卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1902年）
【Dewey, J. (2012d). The child and the curriculum (L. Zhang, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 2). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1902)】
杜威（2012e）。實用主義對教育的影響（陳亞軍，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第四卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1908年）
【Dewey, J. (2012e). The bearings of pragmatism upon education (Y. Chen, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 4). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1908)】
杜威（2012f）。自然及其善（陳亞軍，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第四卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1909年）
【Dewey, J. (2012f). Nature and its good: A conversation (Y. Chen, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 4). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1909)】
杜威（2012g）。民主與教育（俞吾金、孔慧，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第九卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1916年）
【Dewey, J. (2012g). Democracy and education (W. Yu & H. Kong, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 9). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1916)】
杜威（2012h）。教授和公共利益的案例（王成兵、林建武，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第十卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1917年）
【Dewey, J. (2012h). The case of the professor and the public interest (C. Wang & J. Lin, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 10). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1917)】
杜威（2012i）。任課教師（葉子，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第十五卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1922年）
【Dewey, J. (2012i). The classroom teacher (Z. Ye, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 15). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1922)】
杜威（2012j）。關於土耳其教育的報告與建議（汪家堂，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（中期第十五卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1960年）
【Dewey, J. (2012j). Report and recommendation upon Turkish education (J. Wang, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 15). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1960)】
杜威（2014）。民主主義與教育（陶志瓊，譯）。中國輕工業出版社。（原著出版於1916年）
【Dewey, J. (2014). Democracy and education (Z. Tao, Trans.). China Light Industry Press. (Original work published 1916)】
杜威（2015a）。教育：修道院、交易櫃檯還是實驗室（馬迅，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（晚期第六卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1932年）
【Dewey, J. (2015a). Monastery, bargain counter or laboratory in education (X. Ma, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 6). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1932)】
杜威（2015b）。學校與白宮會議（馬迅，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（晚期第六卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1932年）
【Dewey, J. (2015b). The schools and the White House conference (X. Ma, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 6). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1932)】
杜威（2015c）。定向之需要（熊文嫻，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（晚期第十一卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1935年）
【Dewey, J. (2015c). The need for orientation (W. Xiong, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle later of John Dewey (Vol. 11). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1935)】
杜威（2015d）。經驗與教育（戴曦，譯）。載於J. A. Boydston（編），杜威全集（晚期第十三卷）。華東師範大學出版社。（原著出版於1938年）
【Dewey, J. (2015d). Experience and education (X. Dai, Trans.). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 13). East China Normal University Press. (Original work published 1938)】
杜威（2015e）。經驗與教育（單文經，譯注）。聯經。（原著出版於1938年）
【Dewey, J. (2015e). Experience and education (W. Shan, Trans.). Linging Press. (Original work published 1938)】
杜威（2018）。民主主義與教育（魏莉，譯）。長江文藝。（原著出版於1916年）
【Dewey, J. (2018). Democracy and education (L. Wei, Trans.). Changjiang Literature and Art Publishing House. (Original work published 1916)】
派納、雷諾茲、斯萊特里、陶伯曼（2003）。理解課程（張華等，譯）。教育科學。（原著出版於1995年）
【Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2003). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses (H. Zhang et al., Trans.). Educational Science. (Original work published 1995)】
高廣孚（1971）。杜威論教育與社會改造述評。師大學報，16，29-60。
【Gao, G. (1971). Commentary on Dewey’s theory of education and social transformation. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University, 16, 29-60.】
單文經（2013）。為「學教翻轉、以學定教」的理念探源：杜威教材心理化主張的緣起與要義。教育研究月刊，236，115-130。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602013120236008
【Shan, W. (2013). The origin of the idea of “teaching by learning in an inverted classroom”: John Dewey’s theory of the psychologizing of subject matter. Journal of Education Research, 236, 115-130. https://doi.org/10. 3966/168063602013120236008】
單文經（2014a）。反思杜威教材心理化為本的課程實驗所帶來的改變。課程研究，9（1），85-110。https://doi.org/10.3966/181653382014030901004
【Shan, W. (2014a). A reflection on the changes brought by curriculum experiments based on the theory of psychologizing of subject matter initiated by John Dewey. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 9(1), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.3966/181653382014030901004】
單文經（2014b）。教材心理化與邏輯化爭論的平議。課程與教學，17（4），85-112。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201410_17(4).0004
【Shan, W. (2014b). A Commentary on the debate of the psychological and logical aspects of subject matter. Curriculum and Instruction Quarterly, 17(4), 85-112. https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201410_17(4).0004】
單文經、蔣美霞（2024）。綜述Bruner等人執行的兩項鷹架研究並探討其教學意涵。教育科學研究期刊，69（3），225-256。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202409_69(3).0008
【Shan, W., & Jiang, M. (2024). Review of two scaffolding studies conducted by Bruner et al. and explore their pedagogical implications. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 69(3), 225-256. https://doi.org/10.6209/ JORIES.202409_69(3).0008】
彭孟堯（2003）。教育哲學。學富文化。
【Peng, M. (2003). Philosophy of education. Pro-ED.】
威斯布魯克（2010）。杜威與美國民主（王紅欣，譯）。北京大學出版社。（原著出版於1991年）
【Westbrook, R. B. (2010). John Dewey and American democracy (H. Wang, Trans.). Peking University Press. (Original work published 1991)】
霍爾特（1987）。兒童怎樣學習（張達明、王長純、倪維素、張振華、王治君，譯）。吉林教育出版社。（原著出版於1967年）
【Holt, J. (1987). How children learn (D. Zhang, C. Wang, W. Ni, Z. Zhang, & Z. Wang, Trans.). Jilin Education Press. (Original work published 1967)】
Cuban, L.（2023）。美國中小學課堂教學的變與不變，1890-1990（單文經，譯注）。心理。（原著出版於1993年）
【Cuban, L. (2023). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990 (W. Shan, Trans.). Psychological. (Original work published 1993)】
Kliebard, H. M.（2020）。美國中小學課程競逐史（單文經，譯注）。心理。（原著出版於2004年）
【Kliebard, H. M. (2020). The struggle for the American curriculum (W. Shan, Trans.). Psychological. (Original work published 2004)】
二、外文文獻
Barr, A. S. (1937). Making the course of study. In H. L. Caswell & D. S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in curriculum development (pp. 666-670). American Book.
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Houghton Mifflin.
Bobbitt, F. (1924). How to make a curriculum. Houghton Mifflin.
Bruner, H. B. (1932). Present status of curriculum. In Curriculum making in current practice: A report of a conference held at Northwestern University, October 30-31, 1931. School of Education, Northwestern University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1973). The relevance of education (A. Gil, Ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1971)
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1960)
Bruner, H. B., Evans, H. M., Hutchcroft, C. R., Wieting, C. M., & Wood, H. B. (1941). What our schools are teaching: An analysis of the content of selected courses of study with special reference to science, social studies, and industrial arts. Teachers College Press.
Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1935). Curriculum development. American Book.
Caswell, H. L. (1937). The relation of the curriculum and the course of study. In H. L. Caswell & D. S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in curriculum development (pp. 663-666). American Book.
Dewey, J. (1936). The theory of the Chicago experiment. In K. C. Mayhew & A. C. Edwards (Eds.), The Dewey school: The laboratory school of the University of Chicago, 1896-1903 (pp. 463-478). D. Appleton-Century Company.
Dewey, J. (1976). The child and the curriculum. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works (Vol. 2, pp. 272-291). Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1902)
Dewey, J. (1978). Culture epoch theory. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works (Vol. 6, pp. 408-413). Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1911)
Dewey, J. (1980). Democracy and education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works (Vol. 9, pp. 1-370). Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1916)
Dow, P. B. (1970). Man: A course of study: A continuing exploration of man’s humanness. In Education Development Center (Ed.), Man: A course of study: Talks to teachers (pp. 3-16). Curriculum Development Associates.
Dow, P. B. (1991). Schoolhouse politics: Lessons from the Sputnik era. Harvard University Press.
Education Development Center. (1969). Man: A course of study: Seminars for teachers. Curriculum Development Associates.
Education Development Center. (1970a). The Chimpanzee. Curriculum Development Associates.
Education Development Center. (1970b). A journey to the Arctic. Curriculum Development Associates.
Leary, B. E. (1938). A survey of courses of study and other curriculum materials published since 1934 (Bulletin No. 31). Office of Education, United States Department of the Interior. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542618
Lutkehaus, N. C. (2004). Man, A course of study: Situating Tim Asch’s pedagogy and ethnographic films. In E. D. Lewis (Ed.), Timothy Asch and ethnographic film (pp. 57-74). Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1175860
State Superintendent of Public Instruction. (1942). A suggested twelve year program for the North Carolina public school. State Superintendent of Public Instruction. https://digital.ncdcr.gov/ Documents/Detail/suggested-twelve-year-program-for-the-north-carolina-public-schools/1952965?item=2031285
Stratemeyer, F. B., & Bruner, H. B. (1926). Rating elementary school course of study: A report of the results secured from nine thousand elementary school courses of study. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Harvard University Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. The University of Chicago Press.