ABSTRACT
So far our discussion has had principally a negative conclusion, namely, that rule-following explanations cannot be reduced to ruleconforming ones and still give rise to a model that can adequately cope with the relationship between specialised and ordinary forms of discourse. The intractability of such a relationship within a ruleconforming model we exemplified in scientific discourse in the light of the quantum revolution in biology (Chapter 3). We saw, moreover, the effects of this negative conclusion upon a particular model for curriculum construction, namely, Bloom's taxonomy, that we held thereby to have failed (Chapter 4). We shall therefore, in this chapter and the next three be considering various versions of rule-following models for curriculum planning as these, too, have arisen as reactions to inadequate, rule-conforming models. In this chapter, we shall be considering fundamental models underlying contemporary critiques ofthe curriculum by classical and phenomenological Marxists.
