Dewey和Bruner的作品都討論過Course of Study（以下簡寫為COS），二人的教育實驗工作也都曾以COS作為改造對象。但是，在中文譯本中，COS普遍被譯作課程，沒有和curriculum的譯法區分開。追溯COS在20世紀前半期的用法可知，當日美國的COS是由州（縣市）或地方教育局等部門制定的文件，可以對教師在一定時間段內、在特定學科領域的教學內容、教科書選用等做出安排或提供支持。對比《杜威學校》（The Dewey School）和MACOS（Man: A Course of Study）中對於COS的不同處理，凸顯了Dewey和Bruner在「心理—邏輯」問題上的不同立場，體現了他們在學科內容、教師角色、學生角色等問題上的觀念差異。作為一種實體性的課程概念，COS的價值由此可見一斑。

Main Argument

This paper examines the concept of the “course of study” (COS) in education, a term that appears in the works of John Dewey and Jerome Bruner but has vanished mainly in Chinese editions of their works due to translation issues. The author addresses this problem by clarifying the historical meaning of COS and exploring its educational value through the examples of Dewey’s and Bruner’s educational experiments. By comparing Dewey’s laboratory school and Bruner’s MACOS project, the paper shows that each educator’s treatment of the course of study reflects different views on the subject matter, the teacher’s role, and the student’s role. Through this comparative analysis, the author argues for recognizing the value of COS as a bridge between educational theory and classroom practice.

Historical Background of the “Course of Study”

In the early 20th century United States, COS had a well-established meaning as a formal curriculum guide issued by state, county, or local education authorities. A COS was typically a printed document that outlined, for a specific subject and time frame, what content to teach, which textbooks to use, and in what sequence, thereby providing structure and support for teachers’ instruction. This concept was not identical to “curriculum” but rather a concrete plan or syllabus to guide the curriculum implementation. Thus, a school could have an excellent COS but a poorly implemented curriculum, or vice versa, underscoring that a course of study was a distinct entity focused on planning and guidance.

Throughout the early 1900s, COS documents were central to curriculum reform efforts in the U.S. educational system. By the 1920s and 1930s, researchers undertook large-scale evaluations of existing courses of study. A typical COS contained lists of topics per grade and detailed subtopics, learning objectives, and suggested classroom activities and resources, such as textbooks, to support teachers. This historical context establishes COS as a tangible cornerstone of curriculum design in the early 20th century.

By the mid-20th century, however, the prominence of the course of study began to wane. The Progressive Education movement brought skepticism toward rigid, centralised curriculum guides. Progressive educators grew “disappointed” and even “hostile” to the traditional COS, which they saw as overly authoritative, “top-down” prescriptions that left little autonomy for teachers. In many cases, courses of study were developed hierarchically by superintendents or committees with minimal teacher input, reflecting the era’s administrative culture. This approach conflicted with emerging educational ideals that favored teacher professionalism, child-centered pedagogy, and flexibility. Progressive critics argued that a one-size-fits-all course of study could not accommodate individual children’s needs or innovative teaching methods. Moreover, the fact that many early 20th-century teachers had limited training (as later noted by scholars like Shulman) meant that simply handing them a detailed COS might have been considered necessary at first. Still, it also underscored teachers’ exclusion from curriculum design. Over time, the term “course of study” fell out of vogue in the U.S., often replaced by the broader notion of “curriculum” or new concepts of curriculum guides. This decline in usage likely contributed to the translation problems in Chinese: by the time Dewey’s and Bruner’s works were translated, Chinese scholars were less familiar with COS as a distinct term, leading them to translate it inconsistently or merge it with “curriculum”.

Theoretical Perspectives: Dewey and Bruner

John Dewey viewed the relationship between the child’s experiences and organised subject matter as a dynamic interplay. He famously sought to “psychologise” the curriculum content, meaning that subject matter should be transformed into forms that connect with the learner’s interests and experiences. In Dewey’s Laboratory School in Chicago, he and his colleagues experimented with a curriculum that started from the child’s perspective and gradually introduced meaningfully the organized knowledge of the disciplines. Dewey did use the term “course of study” in his writings, but in a nuanced way. Dewey’s theoretical perspective on COS was that it should not be a rigid syllabus imposed on teachers, but a flexible guide grown out of and constantly adjusted to student experiences. However, Dewey’s approach placed a heavy responsibility on the teacher: the teacher in a Deweyan setting had to deeply understand the subject matter and the child’s needs to create that connection. Dewey did not emphasize external subject-matter experts designing the COS for the teacher; instead, the teacher was expected to be the mediator who translates content into experience. This approach reflects Dewey’s democratic and child-centered ethos, but it implicitly assumes a high level of teacher expertise to implement the curriculum in the intended way successfully.

Jerome Bruner felt that Dewey’s focus on justifying knowledge through its relation to the child’s social experience misconstrued the nature of knowledge. Bruner argued that knowledge’s unity and value lie in its internal structure. Thus, Bruner prioritized the logical structure of knowledge (the concepts and principles of a discipline) and sought ways to make these accessible to children, rather than starting from the child’s whims. In Bruner’s MACOS, the content was chosen for its disciplinary importance (e.g., fundamental anthropological concepts about human nature), not primarily for its immediate familiarity to a child. However, Bruner did not ignore the psychological side: he believed these concepts could be taught through engaging materials (like film-based case studies of different cultures, inquiry-based activities, etc.) and that with proper support, students would indeed find them interesting. Bruner introduced a collaborative model in the COS: subject experts and teachers work in tandem. The COS (like MACOS) became a “platform” where scholars and teachers meet– experts contribute content structure and broader vision, while teachers contribute knowledge of learners and context. Bruner provided a curriculum framework that integrated expert knowledge with pedagogical guidance, inviting teachers to participate but not to shoulder the design alone. The result was a course of study that was neither purely top-down nor purely teacher-made, but a hybrid designed to ensure academic rigor while remaining teachable and adaptable in real classrooms.

Key Findings from the Comparative Analysis

The paper’s analysis of Dewey and Bruner’s treatment of the course of study yields several key findings and insights:

• Distinct Meaning of COS: Unlike the broad curriculum (which encompasses the entire learning experience), a COS was a tangible product– a printed guide or syllabus prepared by educational authorities to direct teaching content and sequence. This distinction, well understood in Dewey and Bruner’s time, has been blurred or lost in later educational discourse, especially in Chinese translations where COS was often rendered simply as “curriculum”. Recognizing this distinction is crucial: as Caswell argued, a good COS can support a good curriculum but does not guarantee it, implying that the design of a COS is a unique task in curriculum work.

• Historical Trajectory and Disappearance: COS was once central to curriculum reform and development, attracting the attention of scholars, administrators, and teachers alike. However, over time, the concept faded from prominence, especially with the rise of progressive education ideals that criticized the top-down “teacher-proof” approach inherent in many COS. By the mid-20th century, the focus in curriculum theory shifted away from designing courses of study towards broader questions of curriculum theory and understanding. This shift contributed to translators and educators paying scant attention to COS as a term, effectively causing its “disappearance” in non-English contexts. The disappearance is symptomatic of a broader change: curriculum scholars moved away from hands-on curriculum design (“curriculum development”) toward theoretical or interpretive work, which the author finds problematic.

• Divergent Philosophies – Dewey vs. Bruner: How Dewey and Bruner each engaged with COS reflects their different resolutions of the psychological-logical problem. Dewey’s stance was to trust teachers to adapt subject matter to the child– essentially attempting to fuse the logical and psychological through skilled teaching grounded in students’ experiences. Bruner’s approach demonstrates an intermediary position: rather than leaving the entire task of reconciling child and subject to individual teachers (Dewey’s approach) or enforcing a strict syllabus (the old COS approach), his COS design brought experts and teachers together in the curriculum development process. Dewey’s model risks overburdening teachers and relies on exceptional teacher competency. In contrast, while still challenging, Bruner’s model provides more structured support and acknowledges teachers’ need to learn the content’s structure.

• The Educational Value of COS: Both Dewey and Bruner, despite their differences, demonstrated the power of engaging directly in COS design: their theoretical ideas did not remain abstract but were embodied in the courses of study they crafted. In doing so, they directly influenced teachers’ teaching and students’ learning via these guides, making COS a conduit through which educational philosophy could impact classroom practice. The findings suggest that when educational thinkers create a COS, it becomes a “platform” for dialogue among theorists, subject experts, teachers, and even the public about what and how to teach. This practical engagement can lead to innovations and clashes of ideas– in other words, the COS can be a site of curricular struggle and progress, where different visions of education are negotiated and tested. The author highlights that losing sight of such a concrete instrument means losing an opportunity for educational research to shape practice directly.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the paper argues that the disappearance of the “course of study” as a recognized concept is a loss to the field of education, and it calls for a renewed appreciation of COS’s value in bridging theory and practice. The analysis of Dewey and Bruner’s work illustrates that COS was a pivotal tool for implementing educational philosophy, allowing ideas to be refined in real school settings. When Dewey and Bruner engaged with COS design, they acted as theorists and curriculum developers, translating their ideas into actionable form for teachers. This engagement is increasingly rare today, as many modern curriculum scholars focus on high-level theory (“understanding” curriculum) rather than the hands-on development of curriculum materials. The author challenges the view of some contemporary theorists (such as Pinar et al.) who declared “curriculum development, born in 1918, died in 1969”, implying that the era of actively designing curricula had ended. On the contrary, the author contends that curriculum development remains crucial and should not be considered obsolete. The shift from practical curriculum design to purely theoretical work is seen as an unfortunate “self-imposed exile” of curriculum scholars.