Curriculum and Research: What Are the Gaps We Ought to Mind?

In this chapter I discuss trends and issues in research efforts focused on early childhood curriculum in the United States. After decades of this work, I contend that it is still prudent for the field to heed the infamous caution from the London Underground system to “mind the gap.” In the case of the Underground, the gap is used to denote the space between the platform and the car. A check of a thesaurus indicates that “space” is one family of related words for gap, but others include “hole” and “disparity.” Initially I examine research from two perspectives for study, noting gaps in gen-

eral. The first perspective is questions framed as “what works,” inquiry I will refer to as “if,” and the second is questions of “how” curriculum works. Next, I make use of three synonyms for “gap.” First, I discuss gap as “space,” specifically using the thesaurus suggestion of “lull.” I briefly trace the historical trends in research conducted on early childhood curriculum-related questions. Second, I employ gap as connoting “disparity” to reflect upon the thesaurus suggestion of “mismatch” in relation to research questions, concerns, and methods. Finally, I utilize the word “breach” from the thesaurus family of “hole” to explore the underlying drivers of research efforts. This review is necessarily brief; I am not able to fully discuss the possible range of research findings. Instead, I focus on highlighting trends and variations. As noted by Powell (1987), efforts to conduct research on curriculum have been

marked by “the confounding of content, activities, and materials with teaching techniques” (p. 194). In other words, while content and instruction may be separable at the theoretical level, it is more difficult to recognize these boundaries as research is conducted to understand curriculum. The definition of “curriculum” has

been undertaken implicitly by researchers. For many, it represents a package of content and methods, as authored by an entity. However, qualitative researchers are more likely to regard curriculum as lived experiences in the teaching/learning process.