Grossman, David L. & Lo, Joe Tin-Yau. (Eds) (2008). Social Education in Asia: Critical Issues and Multiple Perspectives. Reviewed by Ashwani Kumar, University of British Columbia

Grossman, David L. & Lo, Joe Tin-Yau.(Eds) (2008). Social Education in Asia: Critical Issues and Multiple Perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Pp. vi+220     $40     ISBN 978-1-59311-702-3 Reviewed by Ashwani Kumar University of British Columbia September 18, 2008 This edited anthology of research articles examines the state of social education in the select regions and countries of East and Southeast Asia. The editors, David L. Grossman and Joe Tin-Yau Lo, recognize that since 1980s a wide-ranging debate has emerged across the Asian region regarding curriculum and pedagogy of social education. Such debates are attributable to the political, social, and economic changes taking place in the region and in the outside world as illustrated by the case studies from distinct social contexts. The volume contains ten chapters including “Introduction,” “Epilogue” and 8 case studies from diverse and rich societal contexts of East and South East Asian region. The editors have used the term “social education” in the title instead of social studies due to the nature of contributions which were not merely from the traditional principal contributory disciplines of social sciences such as history, geography, civics but also from moral, personal social and humanities education. Not all countries in the regions where studies were conducted teach social science/humanities education through an integrated approach. Some still follow the traditional disciplinary domains, while others cross-disciplinary boundaries with minimal integration (e.g. national and world histories). That is why the editors emphasize that the essays in the volumes represent disciplinary, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approaches. Of the eight cases in the book two chapters focus upon social studies in general, three chapters examine specific subjects like history and economics and three chapters analyze moral and civic education and integrated education. The editors claim that the essays in the volume: focus on current issues in social education in an East or Southeast Asian society at the secondary level; provide evidence-based studies of practice rather than descriptive studies of curriculum framework and policies or general trends in curriculum development; and provide the reader with a critical perspective on the chosen topic. While some of these claims are well supported others can be disputed as I have shown later in my critique of the anthology. In Chapter 2, ‘ Negotiating ideological borderlines: Korean social studies teachers gatekeeping in the teaching about North Korea,’ Daehoon Jho explores two questions: How do South Korean social studies teachers perceive and teach about North Korea? What challenges and dilemmas do they face when teaching issues related to North Korea? Jho points out that the gradual loosening of state control over national curriculum due to heightened democratic mood of the South Korean society, the social studies curriculum and textbooks, which once were colored with harsh ideological biases, have taken a different shape. However, the ghost of Cold War ideology still lingers on the Korean peninsula. Theoretically, Jho employs the notions of teachers as curricular and instructional gatekeepers who are not mere passive deliverers of official curriculum and textbooks but have a considerable degree of autonomy in taking decisions about content and the pedagogy (based on the work of Thornton, 1991) and practical theoreticians who tend to develop subjective and context-bound theories for their daily classroom lessons, contrasted with the universal and theoretical principles of teaching (based on the works of Cornett 1990; Ross, Cornett & McCutcheon, 1992; Schon 1983,1987). Jho explains, based on the in-depth interviews and resultant teachers narratives, how Mr. Lim and Ms. Yoo’s practical theories about teaching issues related to North Korea and their role as gatekeepers is influenced by the larger ideological and institutional contexts they are situated in. Jho identified three such factors—the general public’s ambivalent attitude toward North Korea, National Security Law (that prohibits any pro-North Korea comment or activity), and assessment practices in schools (that are standardized and exam oriented)—that tend to constrain South Korean teachers ideologically and pedagogically when they deal with issues related to North Korea. Jho concludes that teaching ideologically sensitive issues in classrooms should be examined by the ultimate goals of citizenship education and that the ideals of citizenship education should never be separated from teacher education. He recommends the incorporation of the notions of teachers as gatekeepers and personal theorizers in teacher education programs. Julie Higashi’s chapter critically examines the politics of Kokoro education in Japan outlined in National Commission on Education Reform Plan (January 2001). On the one hand the government’s policy shows inclinations towards emphasizing the importance of English for the Japanese children in the wake of the globalization (Action Plan for Cultivating Japanese with English ability, 2003) but on the other hand the recommendations made in the education reform plan for the 21st century reveals that the Japanese central government places special emphasis on building a firm Japanese identity through raising Japanese with a rich Kokoro. Higashi explains that the word Kokoro refers to the intangible value systems that presumably govern the Japanese mind. Kokoro education demands that education at home needs to be strengthened and schools should no longer hesitate to actively engage in moral education. The government has come up with a newly revised “Course of Study of Social Studies” for grades 6-9 that was implemented in 2002 with the aim of “fostering love for country.” The government has spent huge amount in producing and distributing Kokoro books and training Kokoro teachers. Higashi critically examines the Kokoro notebooks at the secondary level and the views of central government officials, conservative educators, and local Kyoto city officials, who see globalization as an imminent threat to Japan’ national identity and emphasize the need to engage in landscaping the minds and the hearts of the young. However, Kokoro notebooks and those who hold supporting view towards Kokoro have come under sever attack by citizen groups and educators who are highly critical of the use of Kokoro Notebooks in schools today as these reflect the prewar sushin (Meiji government’s Imperial Rescript of Education (1894) that reflected the Confucian virtues of filial piety and loyalty toward the state, which all Japanese were expected to adhere to) moral education textbooks that highlights the visual images of Japan, for examples an isolated islands surrounded by ocean and Mount Fuji rising above the clouds. In the current state of globalization with the increasing number of students from other nationalities in Japanese schools and the Japanese students who are going to study in other parts of the world, Higashi points out, the importance of equipping young with skills to voice doubts rather than accept the state led moral principles so that they may become able to communicate with people who carry different world views. Guichun Zong’s chapter examines the educational, political and social background that has resulted into the recent reform of history education in the People’s Republic of China. Zong presents a detailed account of the nature of history curriculum in China since 1949 that covers the periods of strong “Marxist historiographical tradition” up to late 1970s, “socialism with Chinese characteristics” during 1980s after the turmoil of Cultural Revolution, and the “open door policy” during late 1990s. This historical background helped Zong to compare the objectives, content, pedagogy, and the textbooks of the History Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2001) to the history curriculum guidelines existing in the periods after 1949. In addition to the comparative analysis of history curriculum guidelines, Zong collected data through two semi-structured group interviews and several unstructured individual interviews and eight classroom observations in Fulton and Jessamine counties of Liaoning province of China at the level of junior secondary (grade 7-9). Zong’s study produced a number of significant findings. With regard to documents, Zong remarks, history teaching is no longer forced to pursue broad and abstract ideological goals. Rather, teaching of history is concerned with three specific areas: “knowledge and skills,” “historical inquiry process and methods,” and “emotions, attitudes and values” that have relevance to the contemporary society and students’ lives. Moreover, the new history teaching and learning are shifting from a traditional teacher and knowledge-centered approach to a student-oriented and activity-based paradigm. At the level of teachers perceptions Zong finds that teachers view curriculum reforms both as an opportunity and challenge. Zong remarks that “while recognizing and acknowledging the exciting ideas and empowering opportunities brought by the reform, there remains many concerns and frustrations [among teachers] about the lack of adequate and appropriate resources, inadequate training in using the new textbooks and teaching strategies, marginalization of the history as a school subject, large class sizes and time constraints, and the lack of leadership support” (p. 81). Sharon Chen Hsio-Lan’s chapter focuses upon the history of curricular reform and the resultant controversies and debates in Taiwan, which began in 1994 with New Curriculum Standards for the Junior High School Education, followed by Curriculum Guidelines for Compulsory Education (1998) and Temporal Guidelines for Senior High School Education (2004 and 2005). Hsio-Lan provides a balanced account of the contestation over the curriculum of history from different groups—political parties, historians, school teachers, media and public—by employing Foucault’s (1980) poststructural ideas of power and knowledge. Hsio-Lan’s methodological framework includes thorough document analysis (of the related reports of the Ministry of Education of Taiwan, news reports, newspaper editorials and public opinions) and interviews (with high school teachers to understand their conceptions of the whole reform process). Hsio-Lan examines the controversies related to history curriculum through historiographic, ideological and pedagogical dimensions. The histiriographic issues were concerned with the question: what should be taught to students in history curriculum? The first draft of the History Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School replaced traditional chronological curriculum with a skill-oriented and theme-based curriculum framework and emphasized on history as distinct form of knowing and understanding. The new curriculum was also a break away from the traditional imperialistic, Euro-centric, and Sino-centric historiography to reframe the history of Taiwan and Chinese history in a world context with emphasis on acknowledging the cross-influences and interconnections between Taiwan, China, and the rest of the world. The first volume of history textbooks dealt with Taiwan history so that students may start with something more relevant to have a sense of why it’s important to learn history. The second volume discusses Chinese history up to Ming dynasty and the third and fourth volume has shifted to modern world beginning with 1500 based on the understanding that during this time and afterwards China had more interaction with the other parts of the world and therefore the history of Modern China can be studied in a world context by merging it with Modern World History. Many objected the idea of merging Modern Chinese History into Modern World History in the third and the fourth volume. Ideological issues were concerned with the question: In what ways are historical accounts structured and for what kinds of purposes? The ideological debate occurred between the pro-Taiwanese independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which came to power in 2000, and its allies and Kuomintang (KMT), the party in opposition, and its allies, who see history schools curriculum as the ruling party’s agenda of “One Nation, Two State” to dilute Taiwan’s relationship with China as well as nationalistic sentiments of the Republic of China. Pedagogical issues of history are concerned with the question: how should history be taught? Hsio-Lan points out that teachers and their pedagogical concerns, which are the most important dimension in the whole curriculum implementation process, have received least attention. This reflects the fact that political purpose of history education always threaten to push educational substance and pedagogical objectives to the sidelines. Most of the interviewed teachers expressed their inability to do justice with Chinese History in the new curriculum due to its reduced content. Teachers liked the idea of developing students historical thinking but also showed their reservations about the increasing workload of teachers and students, inappropriateness for college entrance exams where memory based questions are predominant and teachers’ own level of competence to teach in an innovative manner. However, teachers do not feel themselves completely handicapped due to new guidelines and believe that they will determine, irrespective of the textbooks and curriculum guidelines, what they want to teach in class (pp.102-103). In their chapter, Sum-Cho Po and Joe Tin-Yau Lo, critically examine the curriculum and pedagogic practices related to Personal, Social and Humanities Education (PSHE) in Hong Kong. PSHE is the result of the Hong Kong government’s efforts at promoting integrated study in the humanities and social sciences that is also a Key Learning Area (KLA) in Hong Kong’s current curriculum reforms. Po and Lo investigate how far the PSHE curriculum enhances integrated learning in the humanities and social sciences. The findings of the two case studies presented in the chapter indicate that the development of the PSHE provided a curriculum framework which encouraged the adoption of a more holistic view of teaching and learning humanities and social sciences through emphasizing “strands” instead of subjects and promoting student-centered project based learning instead of teacher-centered rote memorization of facts. However, Po and Lo found some serious problems in integrating the PSHE in the two schools: the learning process of most of the liberal studies lessons was made up of activities and tasks of short durations to monitor and control rather than facilitate students’ learning; inputs from students were low; and learning was decontextualized and was done in a cumulative rather than developmental manner. Sou-Kuan Vong’s chapter examines and uncovers how the discourses of moral and civic education are impacted upon by educational legislation and the perceptions of teachers and students in Macau. Vong employs Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge embedded in the “text” and “discourses” of moral and civic education. Vong theorizes that the production of truths (of moral and civic education) in Macau is situational and linked to power relations. This epistemological position helped Vong reveal how the discourses/practices of the moral and civic education are shaped; examine the ways power circulates and produces a certain kind of moral and civic education knowledge; and acknowledge the informants’ voices (teachers and students) within the process of construction of knowledge and in turn link the action of the subject to power. Vong’s methodological framework included documentary analysis (of governmental education policy documents) and two semi-structured interviews (of 4 frontline teachers and 6 pre-university students) to understand and examine the prevalent discourse of moral and civic education. Findings of research indicate the prevalence of different and even contradictory discourses of moral and civic education in Macau. Document analysis suggests that the main emphasis of the government policy on moral and civic education is primarily to create “docile citizens” and “harmonious society” since mid 19080s when Macau was restored to China through a Sino-Portuguese treaty. The emphasis on “docile citizens” and “harmonious society” gained much attention due to the growing number of crimes by the youth of Macau who are joining rapidly growing gaming industry. The interviews with teachers suggest that they all are concerned with producing “good citizens.” However, every school has its own philosophy of what a good citizen is. For example in religious schools moral and civic education is primarily concerned with religious instructions with almost no emphasis on civic education while non-religious schools mainly focus on legal and social issues in their moral and civic education classes. Interviews with pre-university students illustrated their discontent with civic and moral education. These students feel that the moral and civic education only helps them learn facts for the purpose of exams rather than make them think critically about the important issue that the society is facing. In Chapter 8, Susan A. Adler and Jasmine B. –Y. Sim points out the contradictions of the intended and actual curriculum through critically analyzing the social studies curriculum at the upper secondary level in Singapore. In order to understand the intended curriculum the authors reviewed social studies syllabi and texts that were current in 2004-06; while to understand the state of the enacted curriculum, the authors drew upon their experiences of teaching in pre- or postgraduate and in-service courses in social studies curriculum at the National Institute for Education. During the in-service course the authors taped, scripted and analyzed class discussions on citizenship and the social studies curriculum. Additionally, participants in these courses wrote reflective essays responding to the nature and definition of social studies. The intended outcomes of social studies (upper secondary level) as part of National Education is to “know Singapore” which is conceived as “a direct response to the problem of young Singaporeans’ lack of knowledge and interest in Singapore’s recent history and the central issues considered key to national survival” (p. 166). More specifically, Adler and Sim chose three desired outcomes of social studies curriculum to show the contradictions of the intended and the practiced curriculum. These outcomes are: Nation before community and society before self; racial and religious harmony; and participation and civic engagement. Adler and Sim critique Singapore government’s emphasis on harmony, consensus and communitarianism on several points. First, the importance of harmony and consensus is described as the eastern virtue against the western idea of individualism. Adler and Sim object the division between eastern and western as inessential. They explain that the concept of public good, civic participation, commonwealth are western in their origin and are not in contradiction with harmonious existence. Secondly, the idea of “Singapore before self” is rootless because of its contradiction with Singaporean government’s support to capitalism (that only survives on self-interest) and the politics of pragmatism (that encourages people to leave the work of politics to People’s Action Party). Furthermore, the intended curriculum that stresses the importance of harmony and consensus is embedded in an education system that emphasizes competition, individual merit and self-interest. Moreover, social studies in Singaporean context is nothing but transmission of government approved knowledge. Teachers who participated in the study expressed the belief that examinations constrain what and how they teach. The examinations compel them to be didactic, teaching what is going to be tested, rather than engaging students in critical discussions. Teachers also expressed their lack of control in the curriculum matters and other decision-making issues in the school. Adler and Sim remark, “if teachers have no experience of real decision making, how can we expect the enacted curriculum to provide students with real decision-making experiences” (p. 175). The final chapter of the book is by Ai-Hwa Quek on the evolution of social education in Malaysian secondary schools in general and that of Basic Economics as an elective subject in particular. Quek presents an appreciative account of the government policy on social education and Basic Economics and supports it with teachers’ positive perception about the policy. Quek believed the Basic Economics is capable of achieving the goals of “enabling pupils to internalize the values of environmentally sustainable development while supporting economic development; to live in harmony with others; to enhance social maturity in all learning situations; to cultivate attitudes for lifelong learning; and to acquire an understanding of the diversity. However, Quek identifies a number of factors that she considers are a hindrance in achieving the goals of social education: the norms of high academic achievement and exam orientation that is used as a yardstick of success; poor teacher preparation; elective status of basic economics instead of a core subject that reduces the allocation of public funding towards the former; low enrollment again due to economics being an elective subject; and low salary of the teachers of economics that drive economics graduates towards more marketable jobs. In the “epilogue” editors discuss five themes that they could rightly discern from the eight case studies. These themes include: curriculum reform as the context of defining what is social education; classroom teachers as gatekeepers who, in spite of being controlled by the state-led curriculum, decides to a great extent what and how are they going to teach in the real classroom situations; student-centered pedagogy as rhetoric while teacher-centered and exam oriented pedagogy as the reality; deeply contested nature of history curriculum as an ideological issue; and the contested nature of the citizenship as a concept where every societal context has its own definition of who is a “good citizen”. This volume fills the gap in the scholarship on social education by drawing on the research findings and experiences of scholars from eight East and Southeast Asian societies. Though there have been studies of civic, citizenship and values education in the region and cross-national studies that include Asian societies, there is no single volume that brings together and analyses contemporary critical issues in social education from the perspective of diverse Asian Societies. These essays in the volume present eight different societal contexts using distinctive theoretical frameworks (such as the post-structural and teachers’ personal theorizing) and methodologies (such as document analysis, observations and interviewing) and as a results provide a very fruitful resource for social studies researchers. Since these case studies focus on teachers, they shed lights on their practical theories about curriculum and pedagogy as well as and ideological and institutional contexts in which they work. This results in a collection of chapters that have the immense potential of helping teachers from the same or different contexts to reflect on their own situations. The book will be intellectually stimulating and inspiring, not only to social and comparative educators but also to curriculum developers, policy makers, and front-line social studies teachers. Social studies educators and researchers can compare and learn from the differences and similarities of distinct socio-economic and political contexts. Curriculum planners will have the opportunity to understand various curriculum implementation problems. Administrators and ministry officials can learn the need to help teachers in the implementation of the curriculum effectively. In spite of the merits listed above, the book also has certain limitations, which readers should be aware of. The title of the book seems to express that the book will represent case studies from all over Asia. However, there are only 8 case studies in all and all of them are confined to the East and Southeast Asia, which are important part of Asia but are unable to represent the whole of Asia. For example, India is going through a big curriculum reform, in the wake of National Curriculum Framework (2005), which has huge impacts on social studies curriculum and teaching (Setalvad, 2005; Thapar, 2005;Kumar, 2007). The editors provide a very brief account of the political, social and economic forces that affect social education curriculum and teaching in East and Southeast Asian societies in their “Introduction” and “Epilogue.” However, the reader would have benefited much if they could discuss these factors in detail and link it up to the larger reality. Moreover, the editors tried to differentiate between “social studies” and “social education” but it appears that a more detailed account is required to establish such difference and to explain its importance. In the “Introduction,” the editors refer to the works of Barr, Barth and Shermis, 1977; Ross, 1997; Stanley, 2001 for defining social studies as “integrated or interdisciplinary curriculum that focuses more on citizenship education” (p.3). The latter two references belong to critical social studies educators who would like to see social studies education aim to fight back social injustices and exploitation and work for social change. But nowhere in the following chapters are such aims of social studies were made explicit. Besides, the editors and the authors do not suggest ways for teachers to organize and fight back the state and market interventions that reduce them to the agents of cultural, economic and ideological reproduction. More particularly, Chapter 3 on Kokoro education in Japan by Higashi and Chapter 4 on the history curriculum in Taiwan (that uses multiple techniques of qualitative research) by Chen were good in their analysis; however, they lacked a strong theoretical framework along with Quek’s chapter on Malaysia. Higashi does not use Marxist critique of the state (Tucker, 1972), which is the backbone of her argument. Althuser's concept of ideological state apparatuses (1971) is particularly very important to be pointed out. Additionally, Higashi’s work is completely based on the secondary sources and could be improved by inclusion of in-depth case studies about how social studies is experienced at the classroom level and how do teachers and students perceive such interventions. Though Chen explains in detail the controversies related to history curriculum reform in Taiwan, he gives no clue to China’s reaction to the whole process. Bringing China’s perception into the history curriculum analysis would have made the study more relevant and broader in its scope. Moreover, though Chen explains teachers’ reservations about teaching through project method, he does not explain how the schools with different economic background will respond to such a resource-dependent teaching. Chen also points out that teachers do not feel themselves completely handicapped due to new guidelines and believe that they will determine, irrespective of the textbooks and curriculum guidelines, what they want to teach in class. This is where Chen could have highlighted the concept of teachers as gate keepers and teachers personal theorizing as done by Daehoon Jho in Chapter 2 that would have given a theoretical foundation to his ideas and empirical findings. Vong emphasizes in a couple of places the importance of “docility” and “conformity” in addition to critical perspective in moral and civic education (p. 155,157). I would disagree and so would many of the critical social educators such as Ross (2006), Stanley (2001) and Evans (2004) to name a few. “Docility” and “conformity” are totally inconsistent with critical social education. The very foundation of critical social education can only be laid on destroying the confirmatory tendencies in teachers and the students so that they are able to challenge the existing system to bring about change. If conformity remains in the core then what will happen in the name of social education is simply reproduction of the oppressive social reality without any possibility for change. The chapter by Adler and Sim provides the evidence of my critique of Vong’s piece. Adler and Sim critiques Singaporean’s government effort at creating a passive and materialist citizenry and emphasizes the need for critical engagement that involves critiquing status quo. However, though they carry out a brief critique of capitalism that did not critique the very existence of state and nation that uses education as one of their ideological apparatuses to reproduce and perpetuate status quo (Althusser, 1971). The chapter by Quek is repetitive and full of jargon from policy documents rather than their critical examination. Moreover, Quek considers intended curriculum and intended pedagogy to be the end in themselves and neither analyzes actual curriculum nor shows any future orientations. Though in some places Quek hints at the impacts of examination oriented education in achieving the goals of basic economics, such indications are not found in the analysis of documents or teachers’ reflections. Interestingly, teachers’ words (p. 201) merely appear to be the parroting of what is written in the policy documents rather than their own analysis. Incorporation of some sound theoretical framework would have helped Quek come up with more critical analysis and insightful findings. There are couple of chapters, such as the ones by Chen and Vong that use a postmodern framework but they have not been able to problematize the issues of citizenship, nation, state, curriculum and pedagogy etc., which has come to be the core of postmodern trends in social education research as illustrated in the recent volume by Segall, Heilman and Cherryholmes (2007). Moreover, there are a couple of essays, such as those by Jho and Adler and Sim, which adopt critical stance, yet are unable to make an elaborate critique of the capitalist system that is prevalent in most of these societies (except China, which the editors rightly recognize as “[state-led] quasi capitalist system,” (p. 207). Some of the authors critique standardized tests but they do not describe their roots philosophically in positivism and economically in the world-wide neo-liberal reforms, which are reducing education to a commodity to be sold and purchased (the editors do briefly mention this in their concluding remarks on page 212) (Ross & Gibson, 2007). Noticeably, none of the authors sees nationalism as a breeding ground for conflict and division in the world. Neither does any of the essays offer future directions to view the world as free of these small groups that divide people through ethnicity, religion, nation-states and so on and look for the ways that can take care of the entire planet instead of one small group against the other. In summary, the editors have made a significant contribution by bringing together case studies of social studies curriculum from diverse societal contexts in East and Southeast Asia. Readers will find the articles valuable in terms of their diversity and richness of contexts, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks. However, I suggest readers keep in mind the issues raised above, particularly the collection’s lack of a strong critical stance towards the role of the state and market-oriented forces in reducing social studies curriculum and pedagogy to the agents of reproduction. References Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays [Trans. by Ben Brewster.] London: New Left Books. Avner, S., Heilman, E.E., Cherryholmes, C.H. (Eds.). (2006). Social studies—The next generation. Researching in the postmodern. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Barr, R.D., Barth, J.L., & Shermis, S.S. (1997). Defining the social studies. Arlington, VA: National Council for Social Studies. Cornett, J.W. (1990). Teacher thinking about curriculum and instruction: A case study of a secondary social studies teacher. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28 (3), 248-273. Evans, R.W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York: Teachers College Press. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, Ed. & Trans.). Great Britain: The Harvester Press. Kumar, A. (2007). Reflexivity and critical thinking in secondary school social science: A study of transition between two alternative perspectives in curricular practice. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Delhi, New Delhi. Ministry of Education. (1994). New curriculum standards for the junior high school education. Taipei: Author. Ministry of Education. (1998). Curriculum guidelines for compulsory education (1-9). Taipei: Author. Ministry of Education. (2005b). Temporal curriculum guidelines for senior high school education. Taipei: Author. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). National Curriculum Framework. New Delhi: Author. National Research Institute of Curriculum and Teaching Materials.(2001). Er Shi Ji Zhong Xiao Xue Keng Cheng Biao Zhun Jiao Xue Da Gang Hui Bian [Collections of curriculum standards and teaching guidelines for Chinese primary and secondary schools in 20th century]. Beijing: People’s Education Press. Ross, E.W. (Ed.). (1997). The social studies curriculum, purposes, problems, and possibilities (2nd Ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press. Ross, E. W. (Ed.). (2006). Thesocial studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (3rd Ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press. Ross, E.W., Cornett, J.W., & McCutcheon, G. (1992).Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research.Albany: State University of New York Press. Ross, E.W., & Gibson, R. (Eds.). (2007). Neoliberalism and education reform. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioners: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioners: Toward a new design for the teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stanley, W.B. (2001). Social Studies: Problems and possibilities. In W.B. Staley (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for 21st century (pp. 1-14). Greenwhich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Setalvad, T. (2005, September 08). Comments on National Curriculum Framework 2005. The South Asian. Retrieved August 29, 2008, http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2005/comments_on_national_curriculu.html. Thaper, R. (2005, September 05). National curriculum framework and social sciences. The Hindu: Online Edition of India’s National Newspaper. Retrieved August 29, http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/09/05/stories/2005090501141000.htm. Tucker, R. C. (Ed.). (1972). The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: W.W. Norton About the Reviewer Ashwani Kumar is a second year doctoral student at the Department of Curriculum & Pedagogy in the University of British Columbia. His research focuses upon understanding why social studies education work as an agent of reproduction of hegemonic ideologies, socio-economic inequalities, and cultural orthodoxies rather than act as a catalyst to bring about transformation of the structure and consciousness of human existence for a just, democratic and peaceful world.