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. Tylers approach is seen as the linear model as well as the ends-
means 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 1 sees curriculum development as a fixed,

guide to curriculum planning and linear process
development 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 doesnt indicate who decides what is
achieving the specified outcomes worthwhile learning
8 doesnt 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.

Skilbecks 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).

Skilbecks 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)Walkers 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 Tylers model for curriculum developmentthe classical modelWalker

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). Walkers model of the process
for curriculum development consists of three elements: the curriculums platform, the
curriculums 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 deliberationafter a
consideration of alternatives. The implicit design consists of those decisions that were made
automaticallywithout considering alternatives. The curriculum design, by Walkers 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 projects curriculum plan
and materials from a record of the choices they made. Footnote 16 (Walker, p. 53)

In Walkers 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 Ryles 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 Tylers 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 factusually 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 Walkers naturalistic model isas Walker himself describes itan
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 models 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.