XIX Skup TRENDOVI RAZVOJA: “UNIVERZITET NA TRŽIŠTU...” Maribor, Pohorje, Slovenija, 18. - 21. 02. 2013. 66 Paper No.T3.1-2 SOFTWARE PLATFORM FOR INTERNATIONAL CURRICULUM COMMUNICATION IN BOLOGNA PROCESS Milan Segedinac 1 , Zora Konjović 2 , Dušan Surla 3 , Ilija Kovačević 4 , Goran Savić 5 1,2,4,5 University of Novi Sad,Faculty of TechnicalSciences , Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia 3 University of Novi Sad,Faculty of Science, Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia 1 milansegedinac@uns.ac.rs, 2 ftn_zora@uns.ac.rs, 3 surla@uns.ac.rs, 4 ilijak@uns.ac.rs, 5 savicg@uns.ac.rs 1. INTRODUCTION The curriculum notion appears intuitively clear and understandable, but defining it is far from being a simple task.It is caused by the fact thatno consensus exists even on basic concepts in the field of curriculum study (Kliebard, 1989). Some authors (Hlebowitsh, 2010)opine that the field of curriculum study is still at pre-paradigmatic stage (no unifying paradigm comprising the field exists), some argueif such unifying paradigm is desirable at all(Malewski, 2010).According to (Pinar, 2004)curriculum study is a truly interdisciplinary study of educational experiences contrary to other fields of educational research that are clearly profiled as subfields of other scientific fields (educational psychology is a subfield of psychology, educational sociology is a subfield of sociology, etc). One possibility to determine leastwisethe border of the curriculum notion is its historical development process. Widely adopted curriculum’shistorical development process(Pinar, 2007)recognizes three phases in curriculum notion development. Field formation and curriculum study paradigm stabilization. The period, lasting from 1918 to 1969,is characterized, above all, by instrumentalist envision of curriculum. Emphasize was on curriculum model efficiency and the epoch culminates with Tyler’s model of curriculum design(Tyler, 1949)which even today is most present model of the curriculum development (Pinar, 2004). Field re-conceptualization.Re-conceptualization of the curriculum study (1969 - 1980) can be roughly characterized by following tendencies: shifting focus from social engineering and business model towards curriculum understanding which includes concept of the curriculum as a conversation; establishment of the academic field aimed at understanding curriculum; shifting focus from teaching (particularly instruction technology) towards interdisciplinary configuration of the curriculum (in addition to curriculum designother aspects are included: historical, political, racial, (auto)biographical, esthetical, ethical, theological, international, institutional, gender, caste, etc.) Curriculum internationalization.At the beginning of the 21 st century, within the process of re-conceptualization, the focus of curriculum study becomes understanding curriculum within international context(Pinar, 2003). Jose Augusto Pechecoin(Pecheco, 2012)states that two pillars of curriculum internationalization exist which are opposed driving forces of internationalized curriculum study development: globalization,anddiversification referring mainly parting national specifics within the curriculum study. At the same, two directions of curriculum internationalization are distinguished (Pinar, 2010): understanding national and regional specifics of the curriculum study through horizontal and vertical knowledge growth, and construction of the common global language in the field of curriculum study. The Bologna Process is bold-emphasized as the most comprehensive and advanced project of curriculum internationalization. The Bologna Process is neither a process of creation of the unique European education system, nor creation of the unique European curriculum (Zgaga, 2003). The goal of the Bologna Process is to create an agora, open place in which a transnational dialogue on education is practicable (Zgaga, 2012). The Bologna Process strives 1