MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Curriculum development has been looked at in two ways. These are basically ‘process’ and
‘product’.
As the terms imply ‘process’ is concerned with the methods and means ‘how’ whereas the
‘product’ looks at the outcomes, the end product ‘what’.
There are two approaches that have been developed: normative and descriptive.
The first approaches are called normative – Objectives (Tyler 1949) and the rational (Taba 1962
and Wheeler 1967) because they provide a sequence of steps. These have technical interests of
control.
The procedural approach (Stenhouse 1975, Walker 1972, Skilbeck 1976, Olivia 1976) which is
discussed later in the lecture falls into the second category of descriptive approaches because it
an interactive model.
Differentiation between Process and Model:
Process: Some synonyms include. Procedure, development, method, progression, practice,
course of action.
A process is very simply the steps from the beginning of something to its end. We have said that
Curriculum Development is a process because it has a beginning and it is continuously changing
or being developed.
Model: Some synonyms: representation or reproduction.
In education when we talk about models we are talking about a diagrammatic representation of
something.
In the curriculum development process the term model is used to represent
- different elements or stages and
- how they relate to one another
A)Technical Approaches:
1) The Objectives Model approach.
The ‘Objectives approach’ is so named because the very first step in this approach is the
defining of objectives of the course/program/lesson. (Tyler 1949) In this approach the school is
viewed as a ‘factory’. Tyler states three important sources that must be looked at in order to
contextualise and make curriculum development more relevant. These are:
1) The learners and their backgrounds
2) The present and future society and
3) Knowledge of the major disciplines, especially Philosophy, Psychology and
Sociology.
He said that if these were considered that good citizens could be determined. The more specific
the specification of objectives, the easier it would be to determine the sorts of activities that
students could be engaged in. Tyler’s approach is seen as the linear model as well as the ‘endsmeans’ model.
The Objectives Model:
Stating objectives
Selecting learning experiences
Organizing learning experiences
Evaluation
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Objectives Model:
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
1 provides an easy to follow step- by-step
guide to curriculum planning and
development
1 sees curriculum development as a fixed,
linear process
2 does specify where the objectives come
from
3 division of labor at the various
points/steps are fixed so curriculum
‘actors’ are unaware of what others do
4 cannot account for the many/complex
outcomes of learning
5 limits what students can learn
2 begins with a set of clear objectives that
6 treats ends and means separately
teachers must plan tasks and work towards 7 doesn’t indicate who decides what is
achieving the specified outcomes
‘worthwhile’ learning
8 doesn’t consider that not all learning
outcomes can be measured
9 fails to consider the changing
environment
10 fails to recognize that the future cannot
be predicted accurately with precision.
B)The Procedural Approach:
Interaction / Dynamic Models take into consideration the background and experience of
students & teachers. The curriculum elements are seen as flexible, interactive and modifiable
(In Sharma 2003:5.18).
Advocated by Walker (1972), Skilbeck 1976, Stenhouse 1975), it sees the process of curriculum
development as dynamic in nature.
Changes can be initiated from any point in the process unlike the objectives model where the
beginning is always the setting of objectives.
1. The Process model
Stenhouse developed the process model framework for curriculum design. He argues that a
process model is more appropriate than an objective model in areas of the curriculum, which
centre on knowledge and understanding.
Basically he contends that it is possible to design curricula rationally by specifying content and
principles of procedure rather than by pre-specifying the anticipated outcomes in terms of
objectives.
It is possible to select content on the grounds that it represents a particular form of knowledge,
which is intrinsically worthwhile.
Content can be selected to exemplify the most important procedures, the key concepts and
the criteria inherent in a form or field of knowledge.
The justification for choosing such contest rests not on the pupil behaviours to which it gives
rise but on the degree to which it reflects the form of knowledge, which itself needs no extrinsic
justification.
In areas of the curriculum such as the arts or philosophy general aim can be couched in terms
of ‘understanding’ principles of procedure or ‘appreciating’ particular art forms.
Planning rationally involves devising teaching methods and materials, which are consistent with
the principles, concepts, and criteria inherent in such activities.
In this design the process is specified, i.e. content being studied, the methods being employed
and the criteria inherent in the activity.
The end product produced by pupils is not specified beforehand in terms of behaviours but can
be evaluated after the event by the criteria built into the art form.
Stenhouse illustrates how such a model can be applied to the planning of curricula in any form
of knowledge. If you define the content of a philosophy course, define what constitutes a
philosophically acceptable teaching procedure and articulate standards by which students’
work is to be judged, you may be planning rationally without using objectives.
Stenhouse has illustrated how such a design can be also used in an area of the curriculum,
which has no one specific form of knowledge underpinning it. This project aims at developing in
pupils an understanding of social situations and human acts and the controversial value issues
which they raise. It deals with themes such as War, Poverty,
Education, and relation between the sexes. It operates a discussion-based form of teaching in
which the group of pupils critically examine evidence as they discuss such issues under the
chairmanship of a teacher who aspires to be neutral.
In the project behavioural objectives are absent. The teacher does not seek to promote any
particular point of view or response in his pupils.
In place of objectives the emphasis is on defining acceptable principles of procedure for dealing
with such issues e.g. principles concerned with protecting divergence of opinion within the
group, with developing critical standards by which evidence can be appraised, with extending
the range of relevant views and perspectives accessible to the group.
Stenhouse acknowledges that a process model is far more demanding on teachers and thus far
more difficult to implement in practice, but it offers a higher degree of personal and
professional development. In particular circumstances it may well prove too demanding.
In summary Stenhouse (1975) developed his model as a direct reaction to the limitations of the
objectives model. He focuses on teaching and learning & developing curriculum through
practice rather than policy change. This is also known as Action Research Approach.
This process model identifies the teacher as the person most qualified to make the change. It is
based on two core features – teacher research (also known as action research) and reflective
practice (the teacher reflects on his/ her practice and makes improvisations along the way).
2. The Situational Model
If the objectives model has its roots in behavioural psychology and the process model in
philosophy of education, the third major framework for design has its roots in cultural analysis.
Skilbeck’s model locates curriculum design and development firmly within a cultural
framework. It views such design as a means whereby teachers modify and transform pupil
experience through providing insights into cultural values, interpretative frameworks and
symbolic systems.
The model underlines the value-laden nature of the design process and its inevitable political
character as different pressure groups and ideological interests seek to influence the process of
cultural transmission.
Instead of making recommendations in vacuum it makes specific provision for different
planning contexts by including as one of its most crucial features a critical appraisal of the
school situation.
The model is based on the assumption that the focus for curriculum development must be the
individual school and its teachers, i.e. that school-based curriculum development is the most
effective way of promoting genuine change at school level. The model has five major
components:
(1) Situational analysis which involves a review of the situation and an analysis of the
interacting elements constituting it. External factors to be considered are broad social
changes including ideological shifts, parental and community expectations, the changing
nature of subject disciplines and the potential contribution of teacher-support systems
such as colleges and universities. Internal factors include pupils and their attributes,
teachers and their knowledge, skills, interests, etc., school ethos and political structure,
materials resources and felt problems.
(2) Goal formulation with the statement of goals embracing teacher and pupil
actions. Such goals are derived from the situational analysis only in the sense
that they represent decisions to modify that situation in certain respects.
(3) Programme-building which comprises the selection of subject-matter for
learning, the sequencing of teaching-learning episodes, the deployment of staff
and the choice of appropriate supplementary materials and media.
(4) Interpretation and implementation where practical problems involved in the
introduction of a modified curriculum are anticipated and then hopefully
overcome as the installation proceeds.
(5) Monitoring, assessment, feedback and reconstruction which involve a much wider
concept of evaluation than determining to what extent a curriculum meets its
objectives. Tasks include providing on-going assessment of progress in the light of
classroom experience, assessing a wide range of outcomes (including pupil attitudes and
the impact on the school organisation as a whole) and keeping adequate records based
on responses from a variety of participants (not just pupils).
Skilbeck’s situational model is not an alternative to the other two. It is a more comprehensive
framework, which can encompass either the process model or the objective model depending
on which aspects of the curriculum are being designed. It is flexible, adaptable and open to
interpretation in the light of changing circumstances.
It does not presuppose a linear progression through its components. Teachers can begin at any
stage and activities can develop concurrently.
The model outlined does not presuppose a means-end analysis at all; it simple encourages
teams or groups of curriculum developers to take into account different elements and aspects
of the curriculum-development process, to see the process as an organic whole, and to work in
a moderately systematic way.
Very importantly, it forces those involved in curriculum development to consider systematically
their particular context, and it links their decisions to wider cultural and social considerations.
In summary Skilbeck (1976) stated that:
A situational analysis of needs is vital for effective curriculum change.
He also said:
• Education should be a meaningful learning experience
• Teachers are very important
• Curriculum change can occur at any point in the process & can proceed in any direction
• The source of objectives should be clear to teachers and curriculum developers
3)Walker’s naturalistic model
Walker (1972) felt that the objectives or rational models were unsuccessful and devised a
model,
which has three phases. These phases are
1.Platform – includes “…ideas, preferences, points of view, beliefs and values about the
curriculum” (Print: 1993:113).
2. Deliberations – here interaction between stakeholders begin and clarification of views
and ideas in order to reach a consensus of a shared vision.
3. Design – here, curriculum developers actually make decisions, which are based on
deliberations (above). These decisions affect curriculum documents and materials production.
Walker stresses the importance of studying actual curriculum work as a means for determining
what is working and what needs to be improved Footnote 7 (Reid & Walker, 1975, p. ix). Rather
than proposing a new model or theory to describe how a curriculum should be organized, built,
and evaluated, Walker suggests that critically studying the ways which we now build, organize,
and evaluate a curriculum will more effectively lead to answers of practical questions.
As an alternative to Tyler’s model for curriculum development—“the classical model”—Walker
proposes a model that is based upon observations of actual curriculum projects. He refers to
this model as a “naturalistic model” Footnote 8 (Walker, 1971, p.51). Walker’s model of the
process for curriculum development consists of three elements: the curriculum’s platform, the
curriculum’s design, and the process of deliberation which leads the process from the platform
to its design Footnote 9 (Walker, p. 52).
The platform is not merely a statement of objectives or an outline of a theory. The platform
consists of a mixture of ideologies related to education and its purposes. These beliefs are
rooted on judgments concerning the existing curriculum, as well as visions of the way the
curriculum ought to be. Walker compares the deliberative platform to a political platform.
Both platforms guide their respective groups in making decisions and determining actions,
without restricting their deliberative power by defining their purposes in terms of prescriptive
objectives Footnote 10 (Walker, 2003, p.237). The platform is the guiding force for the
deliberative process, and all decisions made during the process will be judged in terms of
consistency to the platform Footnote 11 (Walker, 1971, p. 57). Therefore, the platform should
also include explicit models of the issues and the curriculum problems that the group will be
faced with Footnote 12 (Walker, 2003, p. 237).
After a platform has been established, the process of deliberation begins as the group attempts
to make specific decisions in regards to the curriculum. Deliberation may take on many forms,
but the most common forms are argumentation and debate Footnote 13 (Walker, 1971, p. 55).
During deliberation, proposed decisions are formulated and alternatives to those proposed
decisions are suggested. Arguments for and against the proposed decisions and their
alternatives are then considered by the group in an attempt to choose the most defensible
alternative Footnote 14 (Walker, p.54). It is important to understand that a course of action
that is decided upon by a deliberative group is not to be construed as the “correct” course of
action. Instead, it is interpreted as the best available course of action known to the group
Footnote 15 (Walker, 2003, p. 223).
The result of deliberation is the curriculum design. Walker suggests that the design is best
represented as the series of decisions that were made during the creation of the design. These
decisions make up two parts of the design: the explicit design and the implicit design. The
explicit design is composed of the decisions that were made during deliberation—after a
consideration of alternatives. The implicit design consists of those decisions that were made
automatically—without considering alternatives. The curriculum design, by Walker’s own
admission, is difficult to specify precisely, but he offers this explanation:
Just as an experienced architect could construct a model of a building from a complete
record of the decisions made by the buildings designer as well as from a set of blueprints,
so a curriculum developer could substantially reconstruct a project’s curriculum plan and
materials from a record of the choices they made. Footnote 16 (Walker, p. 53)
In Walker’s naturalistic model, the important output that is generated by curriculum
development is a set of decisions. As a result, evaluation is used only as a means of justifying or
discrediting the decisions that were made, rather than as a self-corrective process that directs
practice to the attainment of objectives.
When developing a curriculum, a group (or individual teacher) must identify what will be taught
and how it will be taught. Walker suggests that in order to effectively make this determination,
a group must work from an appropriate “conceptualization” of knowledge. In the same way
that scientists who are trying to answer practical questions related to heat and temperature
have benefited from the conceptualization of heat as the motion of molecules, teachers and
curriculum groups can benefit from an appropriate conceptualization of knowledge when trying
to answer questions about what to teach and how to teach it Footnote 17 (Walker & Soltis,
1992, p. 39). Walker identifies Gilbert Ryle’s analysis of knowledge, as an important
conceptualization of knowledge. Ryle suggests that there are important differences in knowing
how to do something, and “knowing that such and such is so” Footnote 18 (Walker & Soltis, p.
40). There is no designation by Ryle or Walker that one form of knowledge is more important
than the other, but they suggest it is important to distinguish between the two forms, and
careful thought should be taken to determine how much of a certain form is appropriate for a
given situation. A familiarity with different conceptualizations of knowledge allows teachers to
contemplate possible practices and actions that would not have been considered otherwise.
Walker praises the Tyler Rationale for its commitment to identify a “highly rationalized,
comprehensive method for arriving at logical and justifiable curricula of many different kinds”.
However, Walker questions the effectiveness and practicality of Tyler’s emphasis on objectives
in matters of the curriculum. Quite often with matters of the curriculum, it is not possible or
desirable to know how things will transpire as a lesson, project, or proposal progresses toward
its completion. To require that a curriculum be developed from a predetermined list of
objectives that prescribe a measurable end result, is to limit the possibilities of an educational
endeavor, and in many instances represents an unobtainable ideal. Walker suggests that most
objectives that are tied to a curriculum are stated after the fact—usually as a means of
communicating purposes to teachers rather than as initiation points for development Footnote
19 (Walker & Soltis, 1992, p. 60). Instead of using objectives as the primary building blocks for
the curriculum, Walker suggests the concept of a curriculum platform as the launching pad for
curriculum development. As described earlier, the platform consists of a group of shared ideas,
beliefs, and values that guide the deliberative process in curriculum decisions. The platform
serves a similar purpose in the deliberation process as that of objectives in the Tyler Rationale.
The platform, however, is purposefully less explicit, and the ideas that define a platform are not
prescriptions for an obligatory end result. Walker emphasizes that the platform should be
written down at the beginning of a curriculum design, but can also be continually updated
throughout the process.
In conclusion I believe Walker’s naturalistic model is—as Walker himself describes it—an
appropriate descriptive model for curriculum development in most instances. I also believe
that it is an efficient prescriptive model for curriculum development. It is not, however, a
model that facilitates change. For deliberation to be considered effective, it requires the
availability of alternative solutions to any proposed solution. Unless the curriculum group is
well represented by divergent voices, any solution that is determined by the group is hardly
viable as a best available solution. Such a solution appears to be a solution by default,
desperation, or conspiracy. The model’s power to generate appropriate solutions to curriculum
problems is diluted when the group is small in number or homogeneous in their views and
understandings. The model also fails to get curriculum development going at all if the groups
are too divergent in their curriculum visions and aims. It seems to me there would have to be a
significant amount of cohesion within the group to establish a working platform, and this
required cohesion would contribute to the perpetuation of the status quo.
References
Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kliebard, H.M. (1975). The Tyler Rationale. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: The
reconceptualists (pp. 70-83). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing Corp.
Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893-1958 (3rd ed.). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Reid, W.A., & Walker, D.F. (Eds.). (1975). Case studies in curriculum change. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Schwab, J.J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significances. In G.W. Ford & L.
Pungo (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 6-30). Chicago: Rand McNally
& Company.
Schwab, J.J. (1969). The practical. School Review, 178, 1-23.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Walker, D.F. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. The School Review, 80(1),
51-65.
Walker, D.F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passions and professionalism (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walker, D.F., & Soltis, J.F. (1992). Curriculum and aims (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Bell, M., & Lefoe, G. (1998). Curriculum design for flexible delivery – massaging the model. In ASCILITE
'98 : flexibility the next wave? : proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society
for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, December 14th to December 16th, 1998.
Biggs, J. & Tang C. (2008). Teaching for quality learning at university. Sydney, McGraw-Hill.
Brady, L. (1995). Curriculum development, 5th edn. Sydney, Prentice-Hall.
Hawes, j. (1979). Models and muddles in school-based curriculum development. The Leader, 1.
Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D. & Sims, R. (2006). The Phoenix Rising: emergent modes of instructional
design. Distance Education, 27(2), August 2006, 171-185.
Nicholls, A & Nicholls, S. (1972). Developing a curriculum: a practical guide. London, Allen & Unwin.
Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design, 2nd edn. Sydney, Allen & Unwin.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, Heineman.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: theory and practice. New York, Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, The University of Chicago
Press.
Walker, D. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development, School Review, 80(1), 51-65.
Wheeler, D.K. (1967). Curriculum process. London, University of London Press.