The place of writing in first grade Kuwaiti english education : a sociological case study

A hybridized society, Kuwait meshes Islamic ideologies with western culture. Linguistically, English exists across both foreign language and second language nomenclatures in the country due to globalization and internationalization which has seen increasing use of English in Kuwait. Originally consisting of listening, speaking, reading and writing, the first grade English curriculum in Kuwait was narrowed in 2002 to focus only on the development of oral English skills, and to exclude writing. Since that time, both Kuwaiti teachers and parents have expressed dissatisfaction with this curriculum on the basis that this model disadvantages their children. In first grade however, the teaching of pre-writing has remained as part of the curriculum. This research analyses the parameters of English pre-writing and writing instruction in first grade in Kuwaiti classrooms, investigates first grade English pre-writing and writing teaching, and gathers insights from parents, teachers and students regarding the appropriateness of the current curriculum. Through interviews and classroom observations, and an analysis of curriculum documents, this case study found that the relationship between oral and written language is more complex than suggested by either the Kuwaiti curriculum reform, or international literature concerning the delayed teaching of writing. Intended curriculum integration across Kuwait subjects is also far more complex than first believed, due to a developmental mismatch between English pre-writing skills and Arabic language capabilities. Findings suggest an alternative approach to teaching writing may be more appropriate and more effective for first Grade students in the current Kuwait curriculum context. They contribute also to an emerging interest in the second and foreign language fields in the teaching of writing to young learners.

The purposes of history? Curriculum studies, invisible objects and twenty-first century societies

A new intellectual epoch has generated new enterprises to suit changed beliefs and circumstances. A widespread sentiment in both formal historiography and curriculum studies reduces the “new” to the question of how knowledge is recognized as such, how it is gained, and how it is represented in narrative form. Whether the nature of history and conceptions of knowledge are, or ought to be, central considerations in curriculum studies and reducible to purposes or elevated as present orientated requires rethinking. This paper operates as an incitement to discourse that disrupts the protection and isolation of primary categories in the field whose troubling is overdue. In particular, the paper moves through several layers that highlight the lack of settlement regarding the endowment of objects for study with the status of the scientific. It traces how some “invisible” things have been included within the purview of curriculum history as objects of study and not others. The focus is the making of things deemed invisible into scientific objects (or not) and the specific site of analysis is the work of William James (1842-1910). James studied intensely both child mind and the ghost, the former of which becomes scientized and legitimated for further study, the latter abjected. This contrast opens key points for reconsideration regarding conditions of proof, validation criteria, and subject matters and points to opportunities to challenge some well-rehearsed foreclosures within progressive politics and education.

The future of diversity and difference : can the national curriculum for English be hospitable?

This chapter explores the context of constructing the Australian Curriculum: English and how it represents and responds to the diversity of students. It starts with the brief genealogy of neoliberal standards-based reforms as a way of managing differences. In doing so, the chapter situates the national agenda of curriculum reforms in the semiotic order of ‘risk societies’ (Beck, 1992) through which various risks are both manufactured and managed. The semiotic order of managing educational risks through reforms is presented as a discursive force-field that both creates ‘moral panics’ and provides solutions, thereby appealing to the broader public and securing its consent. This discussion prepares the ground for the reading of texts produced in the lead-up to the actual release of the national curriculum for English and statements about diversity in these documents as well as in the curriculum itself. The chapter then goes on to explore what might be possible in the process of the curriculum implementation, by drawing on ideas of hospitality, responsibility and dialogism. In conclusion, this essay argues that no national curriculum can be successfully implemented unless it is sensitive to the textual and cultural practices of other groups and unless it wins their political consent. Equally, no national curriculum can be ethically implemented unless it recognises and responds to difference and unless it creates a possibility of transcending the logic of the Same.