Thesis (Ed.D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: Gordon N. Mackenzie. Dissertation Committee: William S. Vincent. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hong Kong, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 224-250).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Melbourne, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, 1998. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves [296]-310).

Thesis (D. Ed.) in Individualized Program--University of Maine, 2001. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 241-249).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1999. / Title from title page screen, viewed July 26, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Robert L. Fisher (chair), Penny Kolloff, Anthony Lorshbach, Mary Anne Moffitt, Rex Morrow. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 261-278) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (D. Ed.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI/Dissertation Abstracts International.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Boise State University, 2005. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 188-193). Also available online via the ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.

Thesis (PhD(Education Management and Policy Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

While disparities between the declared and the enactive curriculum have been widely observed, the significance of what is actually taught has not been investigated. This study proposes that the enactive curriculum is not merely deviant from the declared curriculum; rather, it is part of the curriculum-making process. Teachers necessarily produce the curriculum as an object of study which students encounter in the classroom. This object of study expresses the teacher’s conception of what students need to learn, and is intelligibly related to what they do learn. To explore this idea, the research project focused on the study of physics and history at Year 12, where teachers used a common curriculum and worked to a common external examination. Teachers of these subjects were interviewed about their practice and what they wanted students to learn. A phenomenographic analysis of these interviews showed a systematic relationship between the teacher’s focus and the embedded metaphors s/he used to describe students’ learning. In physics and history, the teachers’ conceptions formed a parallel sequence. What was to be studied was described in a widening context: from a narrow focus on facts or algorithms, to a wider view of a body of knowledge or theory, to a relational view where the physicist or the historian was seen to construct theoretical interpretations or readings of relevant detail. There was corresponding variation in the questions and tasks in which students were engaged.