CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

MODELS: AN ANALYSIS
EDCS 211 FINAL PAPER

Submitted by:
Heidi Liza F. De Mesa
98-22687

Submitted to:
Dr. Greg Pawilen

Introduction
Developing a curriculum is a difficult process.

It entails considering the different

elements that should be included in the curriculum and the sequence in which they will be dealt
with. I think this is the main reason why many curricularists came up with their own model of
developing curriculum. Each one has its own reason for incorporating certain components they
think should be taken into consideration. Some of them have similarities while others are
entirely different. Some are termed as prescriptive and suggests a linear or cyclical sequence
while some are named as descriptive wherein they merely describe the process of developing
the curriculum (Oliva, 1992). This paper will try to analyze the twelve curriculum development
models that are being used nowadays.
I. Tylers Rational Linear Approach
Ralph W. Tyler believed that there are only four important questions to be asked when
developing a curriculum. These four questions are concerned about selecting the objectives,
selecting the learning experiences, organizing learning experiences and evaluating.

Tyler

believed that these four components should be taken in systematically because the answers to the
latter questions presume answers to the previous questions. That is why Tylers model is termed
as rational-linear (Marsh, 2007).
In selecting the objectives, Tyler identified three sources of knowledge: learners,
contemporary society and subject matter (Marsh, 2007; Oliva, 1992). These three different
sources provide diverse objectives. Hence, Tyler identified two considerations that should be
used to screen the important objectives. The two considerations are educational philosophy and
psychology of learners (Marsh, 2007).
1

After selecting the objectives, learning experiences should be selected next. Learning
experiences are the different learning activities that will help the students to obtain the objectives
(Marsh, 2007). With this in mind, curriculum planners should simply choose those learning
experiences that will really help the learners achieve the objectives.
The third concern of Tyler is how to organize the learning experiences. He believed that
learning will be most efficient only if it is properly organized. He suggested that the learning
experiences should be organized in a way that it will help the students reach the objectives which
is the same reason for selecting the learning experiences (Marsh, 2007).
For the last question about evaluation, Tyler wanted to determine if the objectives are
actually achieved and that the learning experiences produced the desired results.

He also

emphasized that evaluation should not be limited to written tests but should also involve
observing changes in the students behaviors (Marsh, 2007).
Tylers Rational-Linear Approach has been beneficial to many curriculum developers.
Although Tyler emphasized in his book that it is not a manual, many have followed his model.
One of the considered strengths of this model is its simplicity so it is easy to follow. However,
some argued that its simplicity is also a limitation that is why other curricularists develop their
own models. Some find the selection of objectives from the three possible sources ambiguous
and considered it as a weakness but others find it to be strength of the model as well. In general,
the strength or the weakness of the model is arbitrary depending on the point of view of the
curriculum developer (Marsh, 2007).

II. The Taba Model

Hilda Taba followed the grass-roots approach in developing curriculum. She believed in
an inductive approach to curriculum development. For her, it should be the teachers who should
design the curriculum rather than the higher authorities (Oliva, 1992).
The Taba Model of developing the curriculum is composed of the following steps. The
first step involves developing the curriculum is the diagnosis of needs of the students for whom
the curriculum is being planned. The next step is the formulation of the objectives. Taba
emphasized that the formulation of objectives to be accomplished should come in only after the
needs of the students have been diagnosed. The third step is the selection of content. The
subject matter is dependent on the defined objectives. The fourth step is the organization of
content. After selecting the content, the level and sequence of the subject matter should be
decided upon by the planners. The fifth step is the selection of learning experiences which will
help the students learn the content. The sixth step is the organization of the learning activities.
The same thing with the content, the teacher should organize the learning experiences in
consideration with the specific learners. The final step is the evaluation. The teacher should
determine the appropriate assessment procedure to test whether the objectives have been met or
not (Taba, 1962; Oliva, 1992).
The Taba Model is somewhat an improvement of the Tyler Rationale. It answers the
question of ambiguity in selecting the objectives in the Tylers model by diagnosing the needs of
the learners first. Although, this is deem as a limitation by others. Some argued that the society
and the subject matter should be diagnosed as well (Oliva, 1992). As oppose also to Tylers
Rationale, the content is not the main source of objectives but rather it comes in only after the

objectives have been formulated. Taba also emphasize the need to organize the content and the
learning experiences. Tyler did not explicitly include this aspect in his model but he pointed out
the importance of continuity and sequence in his explanation of his rationale.
III. Eisners Artistic Approach
Elliot W. Eisner integrated his interests in art education and curriculum by developing his
artistic approach to curriculum planning. It involves seven components. The first includes the
goals and their priorities. Eisner pointed out that the term objectives is the most specific
statement compared to aims and goals. However, he also pointed out that it is not always
possible to have very specific objectives. He also emphasized the need for deliberation when
selecting the objectives. The second is the content of the curriculum. Similar to Tyler, Eisner
believed that curriculum developers should consider the three basic sources from which content
can be drawn: individual, society and subject matter. The third one is the types of learning
opportunities. Eisner also believed that different learning opportunities should be given to the
students wherein the curriculum planners and teachers play a very important role. The fourth is
the organization of learning opportunities and the fifth is the organization of content areas. The
same as Taba, Eisner also think that the teachers are responsible for organizing the activities and
the content to be learned by the students. The sixth is the mode of presentation and mode of
response. Eisner pointed out that diverse modes of communication should be used in the
classroom in presenting the curriculum to provide a wide variety of learning opportunities. The
last is the types of evaluation procedures. Although this is the last component, according to
Eisner, evaluation encompasses the entire process of curriculum planning and development
(Marsh, 2007).

In Eisners Artistic Approach to curriculum planning, the planned curriculum, the enacted
curriculum and the experienced curriculum cannot be considered the same. Again, the same as
Taba, this approach emphasize the important role of the teacher in enacting the curriculum in the
classroom and observing how students experience it (Marsh, 2007).
IV. The Oliva Model
Peter Olivas Model has twelve components. It illustrates a step-by-step process of
developing the curriculum from specifying the needs of students in general and the needs of the
society to evaluating the curriculum. Oliva said that he wanted to come up with a simple,
comprehensive and systematic model. This model integrates two submodels: the curriculum
submodel and the instructional submodel.

The curriculum submodel includes mostly the

planning stages and it will not be completed if it is not translated into the instructional submodel
(Oliva, 1992).
Olivas model answers the limitation of the Taba model in terms of diagnosing only the
need of the student before formulating the objectives. He considered the society and the subject
matter in stating the aims of education and their philosophical and psychological principles
which is similar to Tylers considerations for selecting the objectives (Oliva, 1992).
V. Audrey Nicholls and Howard Nicholls Model
As oppose to the linearity of the first four models discussed, Nicholls and Nicholls
Model is a cyclical model that makes it flexible and more relevant to curriculum development by
the teachers (Print, 1993). It starts with situational analysis. It is somewhat similar to the first
step of the Oliva Model but not as broad as to specifying the need of the society. It is limited
only to the school. The second step is the selection of the objectives. The same as Tyler and
5

Eisner, this model considers different sources when selecting the objectives but the subject
matter is not taken into consideration and again the society is limited to the school and the
immediate or local environment. The third step is the selection and organization of content. The
same as Taba and Eisner, this model advocates the proper selection and organization of the
content with the use of the four established criteria: validity, significance, interest and
learnability. The fourth step is the selection and organization of methods. I think this step is
analogous to the selection and organization of learning experiences and opportunities of Taba
and Eisner, respectively. It also overlaps with the modes of presentation and response of Eisner
because the method involves the manner of presenting the content to the learners. The last step
is evaluation. The same as the previous models it also concludes in evaluation (Nicholls and
Nicholls, 1978).
VI. The Print Model
The Print Model of curriculum development is divided into three phases. Phase 1 deals
with organization. It starts with the formalized procedure of curriculum presage which includes
activities and forces that influence the decision making of the curriculum developers. Phase 2
involves a cyclical portion of the model. This phase of the model is analogous to the five steps
of the Nicholls and Nicholls Model. It also starts with situational analysis but ends with
instructional evaluation.

Phase 3 is the application.

It includes the implementation and

modification of the curriculum and the curriculum evaluation. The instructional and curriculum
evaluation are different from each other (Print, 1993).

VII. Stark and Lattucas Model

Stark and Lattuca defined curriculum as an academic plan. They developed their model
based on this definition. They proposed that a curriculum should include the following elements:
1) purpose, 2) content, 3) sequence, 4) learners, 5) instructional processes, 6) instructional
resources, 7) evaluation and 8) adjustment (Stark and Lattuca, 1997).
Like some of the previous models, the purpose, which is the first element of the
curriculum, involves setting the educational goals and objectives. The second and third elements
deal with selecting the content and organizing it appropriately, which is similar to the third and
fourth step in the Taba Model. The fourth element is the learner. This element is quite distinct to
this model. In this step, the learners characteristics, goals and abilities are being taken into
consideration. The fifth element deals with selecting appropriate learning materials and takes
into consideration even the setting where learning will take place. The sixth element involves
selecting learning and teaching activities that may dictate the learning outcomes. The seventh
element is the evaluation of the curriculum by assessing student outcomes and the program itself.
Unlike Olivas model, there is only one step for evaluating the instruction and the curriculum.
Finally, adjustments should be made to improve both the plan and the planning process (Stark
and Lattuca, 1997).
Aside from identifying the elements of the academic plan, Stark and Lattuca also pointed
out that there are different influences (external, organizational and internal) that may affect the
academic plan. Further adjustments and modifications should be made in the curriculum because
of these influences (Stark and Lattuca, 1997).

VIII. The Diamond Model

Robert Diamonds Model involves five stages. It begins with an assessment of need from
the student, community and field of knowledge which is analogous to Tylers three sources of
knowledge. It is followed by the statement of goals moving from general to specific. It is only
then that the designing of curriculum will come in. The next stage is the implementation process
and assessment if goals are met. The last stage is the revision process if the need arises
(Diamond, 2007).
Diamond mentioned several benefits of his model. According to him, the model is easy
to use, sequential and cost-effective. It can be used for the design or redesign of courses,
curricula, workshops and seminars in every subject area. The programs developed will meet
demands for clear statements of learning outcomes with an associated high quality student
assessment process. It is politically sensitive. It also ensures that all important questions are
asked and all options are explored before key decisions are made (Diamond, 2007).
IX. Skilbecks Model*
The Skilbecks Model starts with situational analysis. Its main concern is to consider the
situation or the context in which the curriculum is placed. Internal and external factors should be
taken into consideration before proceeding to the next step. The second stage is the goal
formulation which includes long-term and short-term aims, objectives and learning outcomes.
The third stage is the program building which deals with the different specifications of the
program: length, level, structure, organization, content, methods and sequence. The fourth stage
is the interpretation and implementation of the curriculum. The fifth and the last stage is the
monitoring, feedback, assessment and reconstruction of the curriculum if needed.
8

The Skilbeck Model is a dynamic model. The different elements are seen as flexible,
interactive and modifiable.

The steps are done systematically but do not follow a locked

sequence or a fixed starting point. This feature of the model can either be a strength or a
weakness depending on the point of view of the curriculum developer.
X. Saylor, Alexander and Lewis Model
The Saylor, Alexander and Lewis Model indicates that the curriculum planners should
begin with specifying the educational goals and specific objectives to be accomplished. They
classified sets of broad goals into four domains: personal development, social competence,
continued learning skills, and specialization. The process of curriculum designing comes after
establishing the goals. Once the designs have been made, curriculum implementation follows.
At this point, the teachers involved must create the instructional plans. Finally, the curriculum
planners and teachers must engage in evaluation. Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis proposed a
design that would allow evaluation of the total educational program of the school and the
evaluation program itself. This will allow curriculum planners to determine if the goals of the
school and the objectives of instruction have been met (Oliva, 1992).
XI. Walkers Naturalistic Model
Decker Walker used the deliberative approach in curriculum planning. He started with
studying what people actually do when planning curricula. He assumes that better curriculum
planning and development will result when those involved in it understand the process. He
identified three basic phases of planning, which he termed as platform, deliberation and design.
He then developed these phases into a framework for describing the process of curriculum
planning, which he termed as naturalistic model. He called it naturalistic because he wanted to
9

show how curriculum planning is actually being done as oppose to the other approaches that
prescribe how it should be done. Walkers naturalistic model is a descriptive model (Marsh,
2007).
The first phase of the model is called the platform. Walker concludes that a platform
consists of various conceptions, theories and aims which are the carefully thought-out beliefs of
the planners. However, there are also beliefs that are less formulated which he termed as images
and procedures. The second phase is the deliberation. This phase includes identifying important
facts, generating alternatives and considering precedent, considering the consequences of
alternatives, and choosing the most defensible alternative. The deliberation phase leads to the
design phase when a group has achieved sufficient consensus about beliefs, problematic
circumstances, and potential solutions. The final stage in the design phase is the creation of the
planned curriculum (Marsh, 2007).
Walkers model provides guidelines to follow in planning the curriculum. However,
there are some criticisms about this model. First, Walker studied only large-scale curriculum
projects and may not apply well to small-scale curriculum planning. Secondly, the deliberative
approach is directed only to the planning of the curriculum. After the curriculum is designed,
there is no description about the implementation, evaluation and possible revisions of the
curriculum (Marsh, 2007).
XII. Wheelers Model*
The Wheelers Model is also a cyclical model. It starts with having established aims,
goals and objectives of the curriculum. The second step is the selection of learning experiences.
The third step is the selection of content. The order of these two steps is distinct to this model.
10

For some of the previous models, the selection of content normally comes before the selection of
learning experiences. The fourth step involves the organization and integration of learning
experiences. The fifth step involves the evaluation process. Since this model is cyclical,
evaluation is not terminal.

References:
Diamond, R. M. (2008). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marsh, C. J. & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches on ongoing issues. 4th ed.
NJ: Merrill.
McNeil, J. (2006). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action. MA: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Nicholls, Howard and Nicholls, Audrey. (1978). Developing a curriculum: A practical guide.
New Edition. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Oliva, Peter. (1992). Developing the curriculum. 3rd ed. NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Print, Murray. (1993). Curriculum development and design. 2nd ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Stark, J. & Latucca L. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
*The discussion of Skilbecks and Wheelers Model are based on the report in the classroom.

11