Even a cursory review of the literature on contemporary curriculum studies reveals the problem of methodological identity. The field of curriculum studies in particular and educational research in general lacks critical historical consciousness and academic communications among the scholars. Also identified is the problem of serious misunderstanding of the relation between the concepts of the practical and the theoretical. What follows these particular kinds of drawbacks is the issue of the misconception about the constituent sub-fields of the discipline called educational studies itself. A thorough examination of the field of curriculum studies in Korea distinguishes five separate and discrete approaches: Development Model Approach, Logical-Philosophical Approach, Policy-Oriented Approach, Reconceptualization-Post Philosophy Approach, and Education-Centered Approach. They constitute the whole of the field of contemporary curriculum studies. This analytic conceptual model requires us to critically understand not only strengths but weaknesses of each approach so that we are able to get some valuable insights into the problem of curriculum theorizing. Our tasks for the development of more advanced and disciplined curriculum theories comprise such urgent academic works as the confirmation of theoretical ground of curriculum theory itself, the conceptual discrimination of educative curriculum from the school programs, and the meticulous search for the renewed modes of curriculum theorizing based on more rigorous disciplinary endeavor. The self-evident proposition that our most fundamental obligation is to generate warrantable and disciplined curriculum theories shows us how we live and what we do with them. We should theorize based upon the renewed conceptualization of education and curriculum. Much painful efforts are welcome, but expecting no promising ends in advance.