Analysis of Three Curriculum Design Models - Essay Example

Analysis of Three Curriculum Design Models Student: University: Introduction Curriculum is a critical component of pedagogy in the sense that it forms the basis for teaching-learning process. In essence, curriculum entails directing and ordering the teaching-learning experiences, which learners encounter in their respective educational institutions. The curriculum forms the hallmark education because it is at the core of training both teachers and students, evaluating students, developing instructional plans, and setting standards (Hussey & Smith, 2008). Nevertheless, the curriculum plays an integral role in the development of instructional materials (e.g. textbooks), as well learning guides for both teachers and students. Therefore, educational institutions cannot function efficiently in the absence of a sound curriculum (Hussain et al., 2011). The significance of curriculum brings to the forefront pertinent issues. These aspects include curriculum development, curriculum organization, and the principles underpinning the development of curriculum. Other aspects underpinning curriculum development include the persons responsible for curriculum development, as well as the techniques for assessing its effectiveness (Handler, 2010). Curriculum development is a complex process that involves planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating the curriculum. It is imperative to note that this process is not static, but it is flexible to allow continuous revisions. The dynamic nature of learning environments and needs means that curriculum development has to identify novel and efficient ways to educate the next generation (Oliva, 2009). Curriculum Development Models The intricate nature of curriculum development has necessitated the development of various models to guide this process. The principal goal of curriculum development models is to facilitate designers to establish the rationale for choosing particular teaching, assessment, and learning approaches both transparently and systematically. The various models for curriculum development vary in terms of their scope and approach (Hussey & Smith, 2008). Just like curriculum development, these models are not fixed, but they undergo continuous improvements and refinements. Notwithstanding the multiplicity of curriculum development models, this analysis will focus on three models: the Tyler Model, the Taba Model and the Saylor & Alexander Model. The Tyler Model The Tyler Model is one of the widely recognized models for curriculum development. Ralph Tyler introduced this model in 1949 based on four primary questions. First, Tyler intended to examine the educational purposes that school should seek to attain. Second, the model focused on exploring the educational experiences that curriculum could provide to achieve these goals. Thirdly, Tyler sought to ascertain the manner in which the educational experiences could be organized adequately. The final question focused on determining whether the foregoing purposes were being attained as planned. In practice, that Tyler posed transforms into the four-step sequence in the order of the questions (Hussain et al., 2011). The first step in the Tyler’s model is to identify “purposes” or objectives. Tyler has posited that the development of curriculum objectives should focus on gathering data from three sources: the subject area, the learners, and the society (Ketting-Gibson, 2013). For instance, current reports continue to highlight achievement gaps among students from racial minorities, particularly in reading and math (Cheadle, 2008). Setting curriculum objectives based on this example will entail gathering data on the subject area (mathematics and reading) and the performance of learners from ethnic minority groups in these subjects. The process will also mandate the teacher to find out how the society is responding or contributing to the achievement gaps. The objectives set based on the gathered data will represent desired learning outcomes, for example improving reading and mathematics skills. Once the objectives have been formulated, the curriculum developers or designers pass them through two screens: philosophy and psychology screens. The two screens refine the objectives into instructional objectives. For instance, the objective set in the first step intends to enhance reading and mathematics skills among students from ethnic minorities. However, this objective is incomplete because it does not include instructional techniques for developing the skills (Hussain et al., 2011). Therefore, the philosophy and psychology screens will be essential to develop instructional goals that will outline observable and measurable outcomes. The development of instructional objectives precedes the selection of educational experiences, which support the realization of the specified objectives (Stiggins & DuFour, 2009). Tyler has argued that the learning experiences should take into account the previous experiences that learners bring to the learning situation. Nevertheless, Tyler asserts further that the selection of the learning experiences should consider known facts about human development and learning. Tyler has also addressed the issue of sequencing and organizing the learning experiences (Hussain et al., 2011). According to Tyler, the learning experiences should be organized properly to improve learning. He also suggested that the organization of the learning experiences woven into the curriculum should include ideas, values, concepts, and skills. These elements would act as organizers that link content with a particular subject, in addition to determining instructional techniques (Stiggins & DuFour, 2009). The final step proposed in the Tyler’s model is evaluation, which is an essential component of the curriculum development process. It will be imperative for the educator to assess if the selected learning experiences have generated the intended outcomes. The application of this concept in the previous example will require the educator to ascertain if the learning experiences have improved reading and mathematics skills among students from minority groups. As such, the evaluation process is paramount in curriculum development because it determines the extent to which the curriculum has been effective or ineffective. Findings from the evaluation process forms the benchmark for identifying gaps for future revisions and adjustments (Ketting-Gibson, 2013). The curriculum development model proposed by Tyler has undoubtedly influenced the curriculum development process remarkably. The essence of this model is rooted in the four questions posed by Tyler. These questions have remained appealing for curriculum developers because they map a curriculum development process that is both workable and reasonable (Hussain et al., 2011). Nonetheless, this model has been criticized for being too linear since it follows the concept of cause-effect, which makes it too simplistic. Notwithstanding this criticism, the primary strength of this model is the special attention it gives to the planning phases. Nevertheless, this model identifies children’s feelings, emotions and beliefs as the focal point for educational attainment (Ketting-Gibson, 2013). The Taba Model Hilda Taba proposed the Taba curriculum development model in 1962. The primary tenet underpinning this model is that teachers should design the curriculum rather than the higher authority. Taba believed that teachers should initiate the curriculum development process by developing specific teaching learning units for their students in their respective schools instead of engaging in the design of a general curriculum (Wilson & Demetriou, 2007). Although Taba used the curriculum development process that is similar to Tyler’s, she introduced additional steps and advocated the provision of more information for each step (Handler, 2010). Taba’s model has seven steps outlined as follows (Wilson & Demetriou, 2007): Step 1: Diagnosis of Needs This process requires the teacher, who is also a curriculum developer, identifies the needs of students that the curriculum intends to address. For instance, the diagnosed need in the hypothesized example is improving reading and mathematics skills among students from ethnic minorities to address achievement gaps. Step 2: Formulation of Objectives Once the teacher had identified the reading and mathematics needs of the minority students, the second step is to specify objectives that the curriculum will accomplish. In this case, one of the objectives may be to culturally sensitive learning experiences that will help this group of students to improve their skills. Step 3: Selection of Content The objectives identified beforehand influence the selection of curriculum content or matter. Taba has posited that the objectives should not only match the curriculum content but should also be significance and relevance. Thus, the curriculum content chosen to improve the reading and mathematics skills should be relevant and significant to the minority populations. Step 4: Organization of Content The selection of the curriculum content is not an end in itself. On the contrary, the teacher should organize the content in the form of a sequence that considers the learners’ maturity, their academic achievements, and interests. Therefore, the organization of content for this group of students should bear in mind the underlying factors that perpetrate poor performance among the students. Step 5: Selection of Learning Experiences It is not enough for teachers to develop and push content to students. In contrast, students should engage with the content presented to them. Therefore, the teacher will have to select instructional techniques that will engage students from the minority group to enhance their reading and mathematics skills. Step 6: Organization of Learning Experiences Just like in the case of content, learning experiences of activities should also be organized. The curriculum content oftentimes influences the sequence of learning experiences. However, the teacher should bear in mind the needs of the specific students that he or she would be targeting with the curriculum content. Thus, it will be critical for the teacher to bear in mind that students from ethnic minority will require additional instruction to improve their performance. Step 7: Evaluation and Methods of Evaluation Evaluation is the final and most crucial step in Taba’s model of curriculum development. The aim of this process is to determine if the curriculum has accomplished its objectives. The evaluation in the case example will focus on learning outcomes among students from ethnic minority groups. Such outcomes will include improved performance in terms of reading and mathematics skills. The main criticism over Taba’s curriculum development model is the involvement of teachers throughout the entire process. The point of contention is that this model assumes that teachers have both the expertise and the time to engage in curriculum development process. This process is very intensive and extensive (Wilson & Demetriou, 2007). The involvement of teachers in the early stages of curriculum development may not accrue advantages. The reason behind this assertion is that such engagement does not necessarily guarantee the development of an effective curriculum since this process is highly specialized. Despite this limitation, Taba underscored the significance of involving different parties in the development of curriculum (Handler, 2010). The curriculum development process is intricate and contains multiple developmental stages. Each of these stages requires input from multiple experts in the area of pedagogy. For example, a curriculum development process may include officials from the Ministry of Education, school administrators, pedagogy experts, researchers, academicians, representatives from community coalitions and even students (Oliva, 2009). Officials from the ministry often assume the role of guiding the actions of these participants. On the other hand, teachers may only take the role of implementing the curriculum whereas students consume the curriculum content. However, Taba’s model reinforces the role of teachers in the curriculum development process (Handler, 2010). The Saylor and Alexander Model Galen Saylor and William Alexander (1974) formulated this curriculum development model based of the four steps discussed below (Hussey & Smith, 2008): Goals, Objectives and Domains The first step of this model mandates curriculum planners and designers should commence the curriculum development process by specifying the primary objectives and educational goals. According to Saylor and Alexander, each main goal represents a curriculum domain (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). For instance, the goal of enhancing reading and mathematics skills among ethnic minority students translates into a curriculum domain. Saylor and Alexander have advocated four principal domains or goals: personal development, continued learning skills, human relations and specialization. The selection of these goals, domains and objectives requires the careful consideration of numerous external variables. These factors may include accreditation standards, findings from previous research and views from community groups, among others (Hussey & Smith, 2008). Curriculum Designing The process of identifying goals, domains and objectives precedes that of designing the curriculum. The main preoccupation at this stage is to make decisions that match each domain with appropriate learning opportunities. The decisions also include information on how and when these opportunities will be implemented Davis & Krajcik, 2005. A relevant question to ask at this stage is whether the designed curriculum should be along the lines of students’ needs and interests, academic disciplines or learning themes. For instance, the designers should consider if the curriculum for the students from minority communities should focus on their individual needs or on the national issue of achievement gaps (Lenunberg, 2011). Curriculum Implementation This stage entails the implementation of the designed curriculum by teachers. Teachers use the design of the curriculum plan to specify instructional objectives. Furthermore, the teachers also select relevant instructional techniques and strategies to realize the developed learning outcomes (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Curriculum implementation based on the case scenario will require teachers to develop teaching plans for minority students in their respective classrooms based on the curriculum plan. If the curriculum plan is to improve reading skills, the teacher will develop instructional techniques that will help his or her students to acquire and develop reading competencies. Evaluation The final step in this model is to evaluate the performance of the curriculum. Saylor and Alexander have proposed that curriculum planners and teachers should conduct a comprehensive evaluation using various techniques (Lenunberg, 2011). Extensive evaluation involves the entire school’s educational program, as well as the curriculum plan. The evaluation should also assess the effectiveness of instructional techniques and students’ achievements. The evaluation process facilitates the curriculum developers and planners to determine the curriculum has met the school’s goals and instructional objectives (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Comparisons and Contrasts between the Models The three models discussed beforehand have both similarities and differences. In the first instance, all the models have identified a sequence of steps that define the curriculum design process. While Taba’s model of curriculum development has seven steps, the remaining two models have four steps each. As such, all the three models have a definitive starting and end points. The primary uniting aspect in these models is that they their final stage require the evaluation of the curriculum (Handler, 2010). Therefore, it can be argued that evaluation has been underscored by both models as the final step for determining the effectiveness of the curriculum. Nevertheless, the three models are not complete because they have not accounted for all the complexities involved in the curriculum development process (Hussey & Smith, 2008). In terms of differences, the Tyler’s model and that developed by Saylor and Alexander are deductive in nature. These models commence the process of curriculum development from the general viewpoint to specifics. Accordingly, the proponents of these models approached the curriculum development process by specifying instructional objectives (Tyler) and domains or goals (Saylor and Alexander). The development of the curriculum then focuses on the identified objectives and domains (Stiggins & DuFour, 2009). In contrast, the Taba’s model has taken an inductive approach since it starts from the specifics before progressing to the general design. In this case, the curriculum development process begins when teachers design the curriculum at the classroom level (Handler, 2010). Moreover, the Taba’s model has focused on the teacher while the other two have emphasized the administrative approach. In the first case, Taba believed that teachers should participate in the development of curriculum because they are aware of students’ needs (Handler, 2010). In contrast, the other two models require administrators to develop the curriculum while the teachers implement the designed plans (Hussain et al., 2011). Furthermore, the Taba’s model pays attention to content selection, including its organization, to ensure that students get the chance to learn comprehensively. On the contrary, the other two models stress aims, control and evaluation. Consequently, the latter models are not sufficient to meet the demands of a dynamic society (Lenunberg, 2011). Critique of the Curriculum Development Models The primary challenge facing the American education system is achievement gaps since ethnic and racial minority students continue to register substantial gaps in academic achievement (Cheadle, 2008). These challenges means that “colorblind” education reform policies failed to realize their intended goals (Caraballo, 2009). The need for new approaches in pedagogy is imminent unless the current situation exacerbates into a crisis. Hence, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) holds the promise to prevent reproduction of disparities in the education system. However, these models have not accounted for the special needs of students from diverse communities, particularly those from racial and ethnic minority groups. The increasing diversification of the American society requires the development of curriculum that are culturally relevant. Culturally relevant pedagogy has emerged as an effective means of teaching within contemporary classrooms that have students from diverse cultures (Lee & McCarty, 2014). At the core of CRP is the ability to develop teaching plans and methodologies in line with students’ backgrounds, experiences, and knowledge. Therefore, teachers should apply culturally relevant and responsive pedagogical techniques, in addition to theoretically effective approaches to maximize benefits (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Conclusion The foregoing discussions have shown that the three models have contributed to the process of curriculum development significantly. Thus, it is not feasible to select one model as being superior to others. In practice, each of these models has its individual strengths and weaknesses in terms of scope and application. Hence, curriculum developers tend to choose models based on specific needs, or combine two or more models when developing curriculum to suit specific needs. Therefore, the selection of curriculum development models should bear in mind the inherent dynamics in the learning environment, as well modifications required to the changing needs of and characteristics of students. Whether curriculum developers decide to use separate models or combine several models, the ultimate objective should be to consider their similarities and differences. Much as it is beneficial to combine various models to develop a comprehensive curriculum, the scope of overlap and its implications should be prioritized. References Brown-Jeffy, S. & Cooper, J. E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education Quarterly, 65-84. (Journal article) Caraballo, L. (2009). Interest convergence in intergroup education and beyond: Rethinking agendas in multicultural education. International Journal of Multicultural Education 11(1), 1-15. (Journal article) Cheadle, J. E. (2008). Educational investment, family context, and children's math and reading growth from kindergarten through the third grade. Sociology of education, 81(1), 1-31. (Journal article) Davis, E.A., & Krajcik, J.S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. (Journal article) Handler, B. (2010). Teacher as curriculum leader: A consideration of the appropriateness of that role assignment to classroom-based practitioners. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 3(3), 32-42. (Journal article) Hussain, A., Dogar, A. H., Azeem, M., & Shakoor, A. (2011). Evaluation of curriculum development process. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(14), 263-271. (Journal article) Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2008). Learning outcomes: A conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 107-115. (Journal article) Kelting-Gibson, L. (2013). Analysis of 100 years of curriculum designs. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1), 39-58. ( Journal article) Lee, T. S., & McCarty, T. L. (2014). Critical culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and indigenous education sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 101-124. (Journal article) Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Curriculum development: Inductive models. Schooling, 2(1), 1-8. (Journal article) Oliva, P. F. (2009). Developing the curriculum (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ( Book) Stiggins, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 640-644. (Journal article) Wilson, E., & Demetriou, H. (2007). New teacher learning: Substantive knowledge and contextual factors. The Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 213-229. (Journal article) Read More