PART III CURRICULM DEVELOPMENT:

Components of the Process

5

MODELS FOR CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT
AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER YOU SHOULD BE
ABLE TO:
1. Analyze each model for curriculum development in this chapter and decide which
models, if any, meet the necessary criteria for such a model.
2. Choose one model and carry out one or more of its components in your school.
3. Distinguish deductive and inductive models for curriculum development.
4. Distinguish between linear and nonlinear models for curriculum development.
5. Distinguish between prescriptive and descriptive models for curriculum development.

SELECTING MODELS
The current literature of education is replete with discussions of modeling. Models, which
are essentially patterns serving as guidelines to action, can be found for almost every form of
educational activity. The profession has models of instruction, of administration, of evaluation,

of supervision, and others. We can even find models of curriculum as opposed to models of
curriculum development.1
Unfortunately, the term model as used in the education profession often lacks precision. It
may be a tried or untried scheme. It may be a proposed solution to a piece of a problem; an
attempt at a solution to a specific problem; or a microcosmic pattern for replication on a grander
scale.
Some faculties have been modeling for years. They have been devising their own patterns
for solving educational problems or establishing procedures, though they may not have labeled
their activity as modeling.

Variation in Models
Some of the models found in the literature are simple; others are very complex. The more
complex ones border on computer science, with charts that consist of squares, boxes, circles,
rectangles, arrows, and so on. Within a given area of specialization (such as administration,
instruction, supervision, or curriculum development), models may differ but bear great
similarities. The similarities may outweigh the differences. Individual models are often
refinements or revisions, frequently major, often minor, of already existing models.
Practitioners to whom a model is directed, therefore, have the heavy responsibility of
selecting a model in their particular field from the often bewildering variety in the literature. If
the practitioners are not disposed to apply models they discover, they may either design their
own, by no means a rare event, or reject all models that prescribe order and sequence. They may
thus proceed intuitively without the apparent limitations imposed by a model. After proceeding
intuitively, the practitioners may then put it all together and come out with a working model at
the end of the process instead of starting with a model at the beginning.

Four models of curriculum development are presented in this chapter, one of which is my
own. I believe that using a model in such an activity as curriculum development can result in
greater efficiency and productivity.
By examining models for curriculum development, we can analyze the phases their
originators conceived as essential to the process. The purpose in presenting four models is to
acquaint the reader with some of the thinking that has gone on or is going on in the field. Three
of the chosen models were conceived by persons well known in the curriculum field: Ralph W.
Tyler,2 Hilda Taba,3 J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and Arthur J. Lewis.4 My own model
is presented as an effort to tie together essential components in the process of curriculum
development. The exercises at the end of this chapter will direct you to additional models.
Three of the models (Tylers; Saylor, Alexander, and Lewiss; and mine) are deductive.
They proceed from the general (examining the needs of society, for example) to the specific
(specifying instructional objectives, for example). On the other hand, Tabas model is inductive,
starting with the actual development of curriculum materials and leading to generalization.
The four models described in this chapter are linear; that is, they propose a certain order
or sequence of progression through the various steps. I use the term linear for models whose
steps proceed in a more or less sequential, straight line from beginning to end. Perhaps the term
mostly linear would be more accurate since some doubling back to previous steps can take
place even in mostly linear models. For simplicitys sake Ill use the term linear. A nonlinear
approach would permit planners to enter at various points of the model, skip components, reverse
the order, and work on two or more components simultaneously. You might say that the ultimate
in a nonlinear approach is the absence of a model when curriculum planners operate intuitively.
Actually, linear models should not be perceived as immutable sequences of steps. Curriculum

workers would exercise judgment as to entry points and interrelationships of components of the
models.
The four models presented in this chapter are prescriptive rather than descriptive. They
suggest what ought to be done (and what is done by many curriculum developers). A descriptive
model takes a different approach. Proposing a descriptive model, which he termed naturalistic,
Decker F. Walker included three major elements: platform, deliberation, and design.5 By
platform he meant the beliefs or principles that guided the curriculum developers. Platform
principles lead to deliberation, the process of making decisions from among alternatives
available. From the deliberation comes the curriculum design. Walker contrasted the naturalistic
or descriptive model with the classical or prescriptive model as follows:
This model is primarily descriptive, whereas the classical model is prescriptive. This
model is basically a temporal one; it postulates a beginning (the platform), an end (the
design), and a process (deliberation) by means of which the beginning progresses to the
end. In contrast, the classical model is a means-end model; it postulates a desired end (the
objective), a means for attaining this end (the learning experience), and a process
(evaluation) for determining whether the means does indeed bring about the end. The two
models differ radically in the roles they assign to objectives and to evaluation in the
process of curriculum development.
In the classical model objectives are essential. . . . In the naturalistic model, on the
other hand, objectives are only one means among others for guiding our search for better
educational programs. . . .
Evaluation in the classical model is a self-corrective process for determining
whether learning experiences lead to the attainment of given objectives. . . . In the
4

naturalistic model this kind of evaluation is not logically necessary. Design decisions can
be justified by reference to the platform only. . . . In the naturalistic model evaluation is a
useful tool for justifying design decisions, even though it is quite possible and not
nonsensical (although probably unwise) for a curriculum developer to neglect systematic
formal evaluation.6
All of these models specify or depict major phases and a sequence for carrying out these
phases. The models, including mine, show phases or components, not people. The various
individuals and groups involved in each phase are not included in the models per se. To do so
would require a most cumbersome diagram, for we would have to show the persons involved in
every component. For example, if we showed the people involved in the component
specification of curriculum goals, we would need to chart a progression of steps from
departmental committee to school faculty curriculum committee or extended school committee
to principal to district curriculum committee to superintendent to school board. The roles of
individuals and groups in the process are discussed elsewhere in this text.

MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Curriculum development is seen here as the process for making programmatic decisions
and for revising the products of those decisions on the basis of continuous and subsequent
evaluation.
A model can give order to the process. As Taba stated, If one conceives of curriculum
development as a task requiring orderly thinking, one needs to examine both the order in which
decisions are made and the way in which they are made to make sure that all relevant
considerations are brought to bear on these decisions.7

The Tyler Model

5

Perhaps the best or one of the best known models for curriculum development with
special attention to the planning phases can be found in Ralph W. Tylers classic little book,
Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, that he wrote as a syllabus for his classes at the
University of Chicago. The Tyler rationale, a process for selecting educational objectives, is
widely known and practiced in curriculum circles. Although Tyler proposed a rather
comprehensive model for curriculum development, the first part of his model (selection of
objectives) received the greatest attention from other educators.
Tyler recommended that curriculum planners identify general objectives by gathering
data from three sources: the learners, contemporary life outside the school, and the subject
matter. After identifying numerous general objectives, the planners refine them by filtering them
through two screens: the educational and social philosophy of the school and the psychology of
learning. The general objectives that successfully pass through the two screens become what are
now popularly known as instructional objectives. In describing educational objectives Tyler
referred to them as goals, educational ends, educational purposes, and behavioral
objectives.8
Student as Source. The curriculum worker begins his or her search for educational objectives by
gathering and analyzing data relevant to student needs and interests. The total range of needs
educational, social, occupational, physical, psychological, and recreationalis studied. Tyler
recommended observations by teachers, interviews with students, interviews with parents,
questionnaires, and tests as techniques for collecting data about students.9 By examining the
needs and interests of students, the curriculum developer identifies a set of potential objectives.
Society as Source. Analysis of contemporary life in both the local community and in society at
large is the next step in the process of formulating general objectives. Tyler suggested that

curriculum planners develop a classification scheme that divides life into various aspects such as
health, family, recreation, vocation, religion, consumption, and civic roles.10 From the needs of
society flow many potential educational objectives. The curriculum worker must be something of
a sociologist to make an intelligent analysis of needs of social institutions. After considering this
second source, the curriculum worker has lengthened his or her set of objectives.
Subject Matter as Source. For a third source the curriculum planner turns to the subject matter,
the disciplines themselves. Many of the curricular innovations of the 1950sthe new math,
audio-lingual foreign language programs, and the plethora of science programscame from the
subject matter specialists. From the three aforementioned sources curriculum planners derive
general or broad objectives that lack precision and that I would prefer to call instructional goals.
These goals may be pertinent to specific disciplines or may cut across disciplines.
Mauritz Johnson, Jr., held a different perspective about these sources. He commented that
the only possible source [of the curriculum] is the total available culture and that only
organized subject matterthat is, the disciplines, not the needs and interests of learners or the
values and problems of societycan be considered a source of curriculum items.11
Once this array of possibly applicable objectives is determined, a screening process is
necessary, according to Tylers model, to eliminate unimportant and contradictory objectives. He
advised the use of the schools educational and social philosophy as the first screen for these
goals.
Philosophical Screen. Tyler advised teachers of a particular school to formulate an educational
and social philosophy. He urged them to outline their values and illustrated this task by
emphasizing our democratic goals:

the recognition of the importance of every individual human being regardless of race,

national, social, or economic status;

opportunity for wide participation in all phases of activities in the social groups in the

society;
encouragement of variability rather than demanding a single type of personality; and
faith in intelligence as a method of dealing with important problems rather than
depending on the authority of an autocratic or aristocratic group.12
In his discussion about the formulation of an educational social philosophy, Tyler

personified the school. He talked about the educational and social philosophy to which the
school is committed, when a school accepts these values, many schools are likely to state,
and if the school believes.13 Thus, Tyler made of the school a dynamic, living entity. The
curriculum worker will review the list of general objectives and omit those that are not in
keeping with the facultys agreed-on philosophy.
Psychological Screen. The application of the psychological screen is the next step in the Tyler
model. To apply the screen, teachers must clarify the principles of learning that they believe to be
sound. A psychology of learning, said Tyler, not only includes specific and definite findings
but it also involves a unified formulation of a theory of learning which helps to outline the nature
of the learning process, how it takes place, under what conditions, what sort of mechanisms
operate and the like.14 Effective application of this screen presupposes adequate training in
educational psychology and in human growth and development by those charged with the task of
curriculum development. Tyler explained the significance of the psychological screen:

A knowledge of the psychology of learning enables us to distinguish changes in human

beings that can be expected to result from a learning process from those that cannot.

A knowledge of the psychology of learning enables us to distinguish goals that are

feasible from those that are likely to take a very long time or are almost impossible of

attainment at the age level contemplated.

Psychology of learning gives us some idea of the length of time required to attain an
objective and the age levels at which the effort is most efficiently employed.15
After the curriculum planner has applied this second screen, his or her list of general

objectives will be reduced, leaving those that are the most significant and feasible. Care is then
taken to state the objectives in behavioral terms, which turns them into instructional, classroom
objectives. We will return to the writing of behavioral objectives in Chapters 7, 8, and 10.
Tyler did not make use of a diagram in describing the process he recommended.
However, W. James Popham and Eva L. Baker cast the model into the illustration shown in
Figure 5.1.16 In applying the Tyler rationale, Popham and Baker, advocates for the use of
behavioral objectives, referred to the stage after the philosophical and psychological screenings
as specification of precise instructional objectives. Tyler saw that stage as the identification of
a small number of important objectives, though general in nature, yet still specific enough to
incorporate content and behavioral aspects. Tyler left room, however, for curriculum workers to
determine educational objectives in keeping with what they believe about learning.17 In this
respect Tylers objectives, though behavioral in nature, may be somewhat less precise than those
proposed by other behavioral objectives advocates.
INSERT FIGURE 5.1
Tylers Curriculum Rationale
For some reason, discussions of the Tyler model often stop after examining the first part
of the modelthe rationale for selecting educational objectives. Actually, Tylers model goes
beyond this process to describe three more steps in curriculum planning: selection, organization,

and evaluation of learning experiences. He defined learning experiences as the interaction

between the learner and the external conditions in the environment to which he can react.18 He
suggested teachers give attention to learning experiences

that will develop skill in thinking

that will be helpful in acquiring information
that will be helpful in developing social attitudes
that will be helpful in developing interests.19
He explained how to organize the experiences into units and described various evaluation

procedures.20 Although Tyler did not devote a chapter to a phase called direction of learning
experiences (or implementation of instruction), we can infer that instruction must take place
between the selection and organization of learning experiences and the evaluation of student
achievement of these experiences.
Expanded Model. We could, therefore, modify the diagram of Tylers model by expanding it to
include steps in the planning process after specifying instructional objectives. Figure 5.2 shows
how such an expanded model might appear.
In discussing the Tyler rationale, Daniel and Laurel Tanner noted its debt to the
progressive thought of John Dewey, H. H. Giles, S. P. McCutchen, and A. N. Zechiel.21 The Tyler
rationale, however, is not without its critics. As long ago as 1970, Herbert M. Kliebard took issue
with Tylers interpretation of the notions of needs, philosophical screens, selection of learning
experiences, and evaluation.22 Commenting that the Tyler rationale has been raised almost to the
status of revealed doctrine,23 Kliebard concluded, But the field of curriculum . . . must
recognize the Tyler rationale for what it is: Ralph Tylers version of how a curriculum should be
developednot the universal model of curriculum development.24
Although acknowledging that the influence of Ralph Tyler on the history of curriculum
development cannot be underemphasized, Patrick Slattery took the position that postmodern

10

curriculum development is challenging the traditional curriculum development model of Ralph

Tyler.25 He observed that postmodern curriculum development is concerned with biographical
and autobiographical narrative . . . .26
The apparent linear nature and lack of interdependence among the various components
are criticisms of the Tyler rationale. If curriculum planners consider the components to be
separate and fail to understand the interaction among the sources, curriculum development can
become too mechanical a process. Tyler himself did not perceive the rationale as a strictly
prescribed sequence of steps to be followed without fail by curriculum planners. Evidence of this
can be seen in a lesser-known, but more complex, model of the rationale presented with coauthor
Mario Leyton Soto. This rendition of the rationale reveals the integration and interdependence of
the various components.27
INSERT FIGURE 5.2
Tylers Curriculum Rationale (Expanded)
Referring to Tylers Basic Principles, Tanner and Tanner observed that it has been
widely used in curriculum courses and widely discussed in the curriculum literature from
midcentury to the present day.28
Although criticisms have been offered of the Tyler rationale and competing models
offered, none, in our judgment, have seriously challenged its dominance, wrote Decker F.
Walker and Jonas F. Soltis.29

The Taba Model

Taba took what is known as a grassroots approach to curriculum development. She
believed that the curriculum should be designed by the teachers rather than handed down by
higher authority. Further, she felt that teachers should begin the process by creating specific

11

teaching-learning units for their students in their schools rather than by engaging initially in
creating a general curriculum design. Taba, therefore, advocated an inductive approach to
curriculum development, starting with the specifics and building up to a general design as
opposed to the more traditional deductive approach of starting with the general design and
working down to the specifics.
Five-Step Sequence. Eschewing graphic exposition of her model, Taba listed a five step
sequence for accomplishing curriculum change, as follows:30
1. Producing pilot units representative of the grade level or subject area. Taba saw this step
as linking theory and practice. She proposed the following eight-step sequence for
curriculum developers who are producing pilot units.31
a. Diagnosis of needs. The curriculum developer begins by determining the needs of
the students for whom the curriculum is being planned. Taba directed the
curriculum worker to diagnose the gaps, deficiencies, and variations in
[students] backgrounds.32
b. Formulation of objectives. After student needs have been diagnosed, the
curriculum planner specifies objectives to be accomplished. Taba used the terms
goals and objectives interchangeably, a point to which we will return later.
c. Selection of content. The subject matter or topics to be studied stem directly from
the objectives. Taba pointed out that not only must the objectives be considered in
selecting content but also the validity and significance of the content chosen.33
d. Organization of content. With the selection of content goes the task of deciding at
what levels and in what sequences the subject matter will be placed. Maturity of
learners, their readiness to confront the subject matter, and their levels of
academic achievement are factors to be considered in the appropriate placement
of content.

12

e. Selection of learning experiences. The methodologies or strategies by which the

learners become involved with the content must be chosen by the curriculum
planners. Pupils internalize the content through the learning activities selected by
the planner-teacher.
f. Organization of learning activities. The teacher decides how to package the
learning activities and in what combinations and sequences they will be utilized.
At this stage the teacher adapts the strategies to the particular students for whom
he or she has responsibility.
g. Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it. The
planner must decide whether objectives have been accomplished. The instructor
selects from a variety of techniques appropriate means for assessing achievement
of students and for determining whether the objectives of the curriculum have
been met.
h. Checking for balance and sequence. Taba counseled curriculum workers to look
for consistency among the various parts of the teaching-learning units, for proper
flow of the learning experiences, and for balance in the types of learning and
forms of expression.
2. Testing experimental units. Since the goal of this process is to create a curriculum
encompassing one or more grade levels or subject areas and since teachers have written
their pilot units with their own classrooms in mind, the units must now be tested to
establish their validity and teachability and to set their upper and lower limits of required
abilities.34
3. Revising and consolidating. The units are modified to conform to variations in student
needs and abilities, available resources, and different styles of teaching so that the
curriculum may suit all types of classrooms. Taba would charge supervisors, the
coordinators of curricula, and the curriculum specialists with the task of stating the

13

principles and theoretical considerations on which the structure of the units and the
selection of content and learning activities are based and suggesting the limits within
which modifications in the classroom can take place.35 Taba recommended that such
considerations and suggestions might be assembled in a handbook explaining the use of
the units.36
4. Developing a framework. After a number of units have been constructed, the curriculum
planners must examine them as to adequacy of scope and appropriateness of sequence.
The curriculum specialist would assume the responsibility of drafting a rationale for the
curriculum that has been developed through this process.
5. Installing and disseminating new units. Taba called on administrators to arrange
appropriate inservice training so that teachers may effectively put the teaching-learning
units into operation in their classrooms.
Tabas inductive model may not appeal to curriculum developers who prefer to consider
the more global aspects of the curriculum before proceeding to specifics. Some planners might
wish to see a model that includes steps in both diagnosing the needs of society and culture and in
deriving needs from subject matter, philosophy, and learning theory. Taba, however, elaborated
on these points in her text.37
Other planners may prefer to follow a deductive approach, starting with the general
specification of philosophy, aims, and goalsand moving to the specifics objectives,
instructional techniques, and evaluation. The remaining two models described in this chapter are
deductive as is Tylers.

The Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis Model

Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis conceptualized the curriculum planning process in the
model shown in Figure 5.3.38 To understand this model we must first analyze their concepts of

14

curriculum and curriculum plan. Earlier in this text you encountered their definition of
curriculum: a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities for persons to be educated. 39
However, the curriculum plan is not to be conceived as a single document but rather as many
smaller plans for particular portions of the curriculum.40
Goals, Objectives, and Domains. The model indicates that the curriculum planners begin by
specifying the major educational goals and specific objectives they wish to be accomplished.
Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis classified sets of broad goals into four domains under which many
learning experiences take place: personal development, social competence, continued learning
skills, and specialization.41 Once the goals, objectives, and domains have been established, the
planners move into the process of designing the curriculum. The curriculum workers decide on
the appropriate learning opportunities for each domain and how and when these opportunities
will be provided. For example, will the curriculum be designed along the lines of academic
disciplines, according to a pattern of social institutions, or in relation to student needs and
interests?
Instructional Modes. After the designs have been createdand there may be more than one
all teachers affected by a given part of the curriculum plan must create the instructional plans.
They select the methods through which the curriculum will be related to the learners.42 At this
point in the model it would be helpful to introduce the term instructional objectives. Teachers
would then specify the instructional objectives before selecting the strategies or modes of
presentation.
Evaluation. Finally, the curriculum planners and teachers engage in evaluation. They must
choose from a wide variety of evaluation techniques. Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis proposed a
design that would permit (1) evaluation of the total educational program, as well as (2)

15

evaluation of the evaluation program itself.43 The evaluation processes allow curriculum planners
to determine whether or not the goals of the school and the objectives of instruction have been
met.
Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis supplemented their model of the curriculum planning
process with companion models depicting the elements of the curriculum system, the process of
defining the goals and objectives of educational institutions, and curriculum evaluation.44
Curriculum planners might find some synthesis of the model of the curriculum planning process
with its companion models desirable. We will look at the Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis model of
curriculum evaluation in Chapter 13.

Similarities and Differences among Models

The models discussed reveal both similarities and differences. Tyler and Taba outlined certain
steps to be taken in curriculum development. Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis charted the
components of the curriculum development process (design, implementation, and evaluation) as
opposed to actions taken by the curriculum workers (diagnosis of needs, formulation of
objectives, and the like). Tylers concept of sources and screens stands out in his model.
Models are inevitably incomplete; they do not and cannot show every detail and every
nuance of a process as complicated as curriculum development. In one sense the originator of a
model is saying, often in graphic form, These are the most important features. To depict every
detail of the curriculum development process would require an exceedingly complex drawing or
several models. One task in building a model for curriculum development is to determine what
the most salient components in the process areno easy taskand to limit the model to those
components. Model builders feel themselves between the Scylla of oversimplification and the
Charybdis of complexity to the point of confusion.

16

In looking at various models we cannot say that any one model is inherently superior to
all other models. For example, some curriculum planners have followed the Tyler model for
years with considerable success. On the other hand, this success does not mean that the Tyler
model, for example, represents the ultimate in models for curriculum development or that any
model including Tylers is universally accepted as a basis for curriculum development. Before
choosing a model or designing a new modelcertainly a viable alternative curriculum
planners might attempt to outline the criteria or characteristics they would look for in a model for
curriculum improvement. They might agree that the model should show the following:
1. major components of the process, including stages of planning, implementation, and
evaluation
2. customary but not inflexible beginning and ending points
3. the relationship between curriculum and instruction
4. distinctions between curriculum and instructional goals and objectives
5. reciprocal relationships among components
6. a cyclical pattern
7. feedback lines
8. the possibility of entry at any point in the cycle
9. an internal consistency and logic
10. enough simplicity to be intelligible and feasible
11. components in the form of a diagram or chart
I would agree that these are reasonable criteria to follow, and, to this end, I will now
propose a model incorporating these guidelines. The model will accomplish two purposes: (1) to
suggest a system that curriculum planners might wish to follow and (2) to serve as the
framework for explanations of phases or components of the process for curriculum improvement.
The model is not presented as the be-all and end-all of models for curriculum
development but rather as an attempt to implement the aforementioned guidelines. The proposed
model may be acceptable in its present form to curriculum planners, especially those who agree

17

with a deductive, linear, and prescriptive approach. It may, at the same time, stimulate planners
to improve the model or to create another that would better reflect their goals, needs, and beliefs.

The Oliva Model

In the following pages we will look briefly at a model consisting of twelve components.
The subsequent chapters of Part III elaborate on each component. This model appears in Figure
5.4.
The Twelve Components. The model charted in Figure 5.4 illustrates a comprehensive, step-bystep process that takes the curriculum planner from the sources of the curriculum through
evaluation. In Chapters 6 through 13, we will examine each part of the model. Each component
(designated by Roman numerals I through XII) will be described and illustrations will be given
to guide curriculum planners and their coworkers. Let us now undertake a cursory overview of
the model.
INSERT FIGURE 5.4
The Oliva Model for Curriculum Development
You will note that both squares and circles are used in the model. The squares are used to
represent planning phases; the circles, operational phases. The process starts with component I,
at which time the curriculum developers state the aims of education and their philosophical and
psychological principles. These aims are beliefs that are derived from the needs of our society
and the needs of individuals living in our society. This component incorporates concepts similar
to Tylers screens.
Component II requires an analysis of the needs of the community in which the school is
located, the needs of students served in that community, and the exigencies of the subject matter
that will be taught in the given school. Sources of the curriculum are seen as cutting across

18

components I and II. Whereas component I treats the needs of students and society in a more
general sense, component II introduces the concept of needs of particular students in particular
localities, because the needs of students in particular communities are not always the same as the
general needs of students throughout our society.
Components III and IV call for specifying curricular goals and objectives based on the
aims, beliefs, and needs specified in components I and II. A distinction that will be clarified later
with examples is drawn between goals and objectives. The tasks of component V are to organize
and implement the curriculum and to formulate and establish the structure by which the
curriculum will be organized.
In components VI and VII an increasing level of specification is sought. Instructional
goals and objectives are stated for each level and subject. Once again we will distinguish
between goals and objectives and will show by illustration how the two differ.
After specifying instructional objectives, the curriculum worker moves to component
VIII, at which point he or she chooses instructional strategies for use with students in the
classroom. Simultaneously, the curriculum worker initiates preliminary selection of evaluation
techniques, phase A of component IX. At this stage the curriculum planner thinks ahead and
begins to consider ways he or she will assess student achievement. The implementation of
instructional strategiescomponent Xfollows.
After the students have been provided appropriate opportunity to learn (component X),
the planner returns to the problem of selecting techniques for evaluating student achievement and
the effectiveness of the instructor. Component IX, then, is separated into two phases: the first
precedes the actual implementation of instruction (IXA) and the second follows the
implementation (IXB). The instructional phase component (component X) provides the planner

19

with the opportunity to refine, add to, and complete the selection of means to evaluate pupil
performance.
Component XI is the stage at which evaluating instruction is carried out. Component XII
completes the cycle with evaluation not of the student or the teacher but rather of the curricular
program. In this model components IIV and VIIX are planning phases, whereas components
XXII are operational phases. Component V is both a planning and operational phase.
Like some other models, this model combines a scheme for curriculum development
(components IV and XII) and a design for instruction (components VXI).
Important features of the model are the feedback lines that cycle back from the evaluation
of the curriculum to the curriculum goals and from the evaluation of instruction to the
instructional goals. These lines indicate the necessity for continuous revision of the components
of their respective subcycles.
Use of the Model. The model can be used in a variety of ways. First, the model offers a process
for the complete development of a schools curriculum. The faculty of each special areafor
example, language artscan, by following the model, fashion a plan for the curriculum of that
area and design ways in which it will be carried out through instruction, or the faculty may
develop schoolwide, interdisciplinary programs that cut across areas of specialization such as
career education, guidance, and extra class activities.
Second, a faculty may focus on the curricular components of the model (components IV
and XII) to make programmatic decisions. Third, a faculty may concentrate on the instructional
components (VIXI).
Two Submodels. This twelve-phase model integrates a general model for curriculum
development with a general model for instruction. Components IV and XII constitute a

20

curriculum development submodel which I will refer to as the curriculum submodel.

Components VIXI constitute an instructional submodel. To distinguish between the curricular
and instructional components, I have enclosed the instructional submodel within broken lines.
When the curricular submodel is followed, the curriculum planners must keep in mind
that the task has not been completed until the curriculum goals and objectives are subsequently
translated by them or others into instruction. Furthermore, when the instructional submodel is
followed, the instructional planners must be aware of the curriculum goals and objectives of the
school as a whole or of a given subject area or areas.
In order to keep the model as uncluttered as possible at this point, I have not attempted to
show all the nuances of the model. At several places in subsequent chapters, certain refinements
and embellishments of the model will be described.
For those who prefer a model in the form of steps instead of a diagram, below is a listing
of the steps shown in Figure 5.4. The model sets forth the following steps:
1. Specify the needs of students in general.
2. Specify the needs of society.
3. Write a statement of philosophy and aims of education.
4. Specify the needs of students in your school(s).
5. Specify the needs of the particular community.
6. Specify the needs of the subject matter.
7. Specify the curriculum goals of your school(s).
8. Specify the curriculum objectives of your school(s).
9. Organize and implement the curriculum.
10. Specify instructional goals.
11. Specify instructional objectives.
12. Select instructional strategies.
13. Begin selection of evaluation techniques.
14. Implement instructional strategies.
15. Make final selection of evaluation techniques.
16. Evaluate instruction and modify instructional components.
17. Evaluate the curriculum and modify curricular components.

21

Steps 19 and 17 constitute a curriculum submodel; steps 1016, an instructional

submodel.

SUMMARY
Four models of curriculum development are presented in this chapter. Models can help us
to conceptualize a process by showing certain principles and procedures. Whereas some models
are in the form of diagrams, others are lists of steps that are recommended to curriculum
workers. Some models are linear, step-by-step approaches; others allow for departure from a
fixed sequence of steps. Some models offer an inductive approach; others follow a deductive
approach. Some are prescriptive; others, descriptive.
Those who take leadership in curriculum development are encouraged to become familiar
with various models, to try them out, and to select or develop the model that is most
understandable and feasible for them and for the persons with whom they are working.
I have presented for consideration a model consisting of twelve components. This model
is comprehensive in nature, encompassing both curricular and instructional development.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. On what bases would you choose a model for curriculum development?
2. Who should decide which model for curriculum development to follow?
3. In your opinion which is better: an inductive or a deductive model for curriculum
development?
4. What are the strengths and limitations of a linear model for curriculum development?
5. In your opinion which is better: a prescriptive or a descriptive model for curriculum
development?

EXERCISES
22

1. Define sources and screens as used by Ralph W. Tyler.

2. Explain why Tylers model has been referred to as linear in nature and identify the
presence or absence of linearity in each of the other models in this chapter.
3. Write a brief position paper, giving reasons for your position, on the question: Is the
Tyler rationale a suitable basis for current curriculum development?
4. Cast Tabas steps for curriculum development in to a diagrammed model.
5. Identify one or more domains in addition to the four suggested by Saylor, Alexander, and
Lewis, or, alternatively, design your own pattern of domains.
6. Explain the meaning of the broken lines in the diagram of the Oliva model.
7. Explain why components X, XI, and XII of the Oliva model are shown as circles whereas
the other components, except for component V, are shown as squares. Explain why
component V is depicted with both a square and a circle.
8. Describe the four models of curriculum planning found in Geneva Gays chapter in the
1980 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (see
bibliography). These models are the academic model, the experiential model, the
technical model, and the pragmatic model.
9. Summarize George A. Beauchamps concept of curriculum engineering (see
bibliography).
10. Find or design a nonlinear model for curriculum development. For one example, see
Mario Leyton Soto and Ralph W. Tyler, Planeamiento Educational (see bibliography).
This model is discussed in Peter F. Oliva, Developing the Curriculum, 1st ed. Little,
Brown and Company, 1982, pp. 159, 161, 162.
11. Define curriculum engineering as used by Robert S. Zais (see bibliography) and report on
one of the following models for curriculum engineering discussed by Zais:
a. The Administrative (Line-Staff) Model
b. The Grass-roots Model
c. The Demonstration Model
d. George Beauchamps System
e. Carl Rogerss Interpersonal Relations Model

23

12. Robert M. Gagn maintained that there is no such step in curriculum development as
selection of content (see bibliography). State whether you agree and give reasons,
citing quotations from the literature that support your position.
13. Describe the model of curricular and instructional planning and evaluation proposed by
Mauritz Johnson, Jr. in Intentionality in Education (see bibliography).
14. Describe the Generic Curriculum Planning Model presented by Arthur W. Steller (see
bibliography).
15. Describe the curriculum development models presented by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis
P. Hunkins; George J. Posner and Alan N. Rudnitsky; and Decker F. Walker and Jonas F.
Soltis (see bibliography).
16. Report on any model for curriculum development described by John P. Miller and Wayne
Seller that is different from the models described in this chapter (see bibliography).
17. Report on the curriculum planning model described by Weldon F. Zenger and Sharon K.
Zenger (see bibliography) and tell how it differs from the models described in this
chapter.
18. Define the term postmodern curriculum development as used by some writers on
curriculum (see Pinar et al., 1996 and Slattery in bibliography).

WEBSITES
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: http://www.ascd.org
National Staff Development Council: http://www.nsdc .org
Ralph W. Tyler: http://www.wredu.com/~wriles/Tyler.html
Tyler e Hilda Taba: Modelo Racional Normativo: http://
educacion.idoneos.com/index/php/363731 (click on Translate this page).

ENDNOTES

24

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20

21

22
23
24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32
33
34
35
36
37

For a model of curriculum, see Mauritz Johnson, Jr., Definitions and Models in Curriculum
Theory, Educational Theory 17, no. 2 (April 1967): 127140.
Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1949).
Hilda Taba, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1962).
J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and Arthur J. Lewis, Curriculum Planning for Better
Teaching and Learning, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981).
Decker F. Walker, A Naturalistic Model for Curriculum Development, School Review 80, no.
1 (November 1971): 5167.
Ibid., pp. 5859.
Taba, Curriculum Development, pp. 1112.
Tyler, Basic Principles, pp. 3, 37, 57.
Ibid., pp. 1213.
Ibid., pp. 1920.
Johnson, Definitions and Models, p. 132.
Tyler, Basic Principles, p. 34.
Ibid., pp. 3336.
Ibid., p. 41.
Ibid., pp. 3839.
W. James Popham and Eva L. Baker, Establishing Instructional Goals (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1970), p. 87.
Tyler, Basic Principles, pp. 43, 50, 57
Ibid., p. 63
Ibid., Chapter 2.
Ibid., Chapters 3 and 4.
Daniel Tanner and Laurel Tanner, Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice, 4th ed.
(Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice-Hall, 2007), p. 134.
Herbert M. Kliebard, The Tyler Rationale, School Review 78 (February 1970): 259272.
Ibid, p. 259.
Ibid, p. 270.
Patrick Slattery, Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era (New York: Garland
Publishing, 1995), p. 47.
Ibid.
Mario Leyton Soto and Ralph W. Tyler, Planeamiento Educational (Santiago, Chile: Editorial
Universitaria, 1969). See also Peter F. Oliva, Developing the Curriculum, 1st ed. (Boston: Little,
Brown, 1982), pp. 159, 161, 162.
Tanner and Tanner, Curriculum Development, p. 134.
Decker F. Walker and Jonas F. Soltis, Curriculum and Aims (New York: Teachers College
Press, 2004), p. 55.
Taba, Curriculum Development, pp. 456459.
Ibid., pp. 345379. On page 12 of her book Taba listed the first seven steps. See Chapter 11 of
this text for discussion of the creation of units.
Ibid., p. 12.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 458.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 458459.
Ibid., Part 1.

38
39
40
41
42
43
44

Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis, Curriculum Planning, p. 30.

Ibid., p. 8.
Ibid., p. 28.
Ibid.
Ibid., Chapter 6.
Ibid., Chapter 7.
Ibid., pp. 29, 165, 334.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beauchamp, George A. Curriculum Theory, 4th ed. Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1981.
Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational
Goals: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman, 1956.
Gagn, Robert M. Curriculum Research and the Promotion of Learning. Perspectives of Curriculum
Evaluation, AERA Monograph Series on Evaluation, no. 1, 1923. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1967.
Gay, Geneva. Conceptual Models of the Curriculum- Planning Process. In Arthur W. Foshay, ed. In
Considered Action for Curriculum Improvement. 1980 Yearbook, 120143. Alexandria, Va.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1980.
Giles, H. H., McCutchen, S. P., and Zechiel, A. N. Exploring the Curriculum. New York: Harper, 1942.
Jackson, Philip W., ed. Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Johnson, Mauritz, Jr. Definitions and Models in Curriculum Theory. Educational Theory 17, no. 2
(April 1967): 127140.
. Intentionality in Education. Albany, N.Y. Center for Curriculum Research and Services, 1977.
Kliebard, William M. Reappraisal: The Tyler Rationale. In William Pinar, ed. Curriculum
Theorizing: The Reconceptualists. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1975, pp. 7083.
. The Tyler Rationale. In Arno Bellack and Herbert M. Kliebard, eds. Curriculum and
Evaluation. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1977, pp. 5667.
. The Tyler Rationale. School Review 78, no. 2 (February 1970): 259272.
Krathwohl, David R., Bloom, Benjamin S., and Masia, Bertram B. Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook II: Affective Domain. New
York: Longman, 1964.
McNeil, John D. Contemporary Curriculum in Thought and Action. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2006.
McNeil, John D. Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introduction, 5th ed. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.
Miller, John P. and Seller, Wayne. Curriculum: Perspectives and Practice. White Plains, N.Y.:
Longman, 1985, Chapter 9.
Oliva, Peter F. and George E. Pawlas. Supervision for Todays Schools, 7th ed. Part III. New York:
Wiley, 2004.
Ornstein, Allan C. and Behar, Linda S., eds. Contemporary Issues in Curriculum. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1995.
________ and Hunkins, Francis P. Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, 4th ed. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 2004.
Pinar, William, F., ed. Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. Scottsdale, Ariz.: Gorsuch and
Scarisbrick, 1988.
. Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1975.
, Reynolds, William D., Slattery, Patrick, and Taubman, Peter M. Understanding Curriculum:
An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Discourses. New York: Peter
Lang, 1996.
Popham, W. James. Evaluating Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Posner, George J. and Rudnitsky, Alan N. Curriculum Design: A Guide to Curriculum Development for
Teachers,7th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2006.
Saylor, J. Galen, Alexander, William M., and Lewis, Arthur J. Curriculum Planning for Better
Teaching and Learning, 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981.
Slattery, Patrick. Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. New York: Garland, 1995.
Steller, Arthur W. Curriculum Planning. In Fenwick W. English, ed. Fundamental Curriculum
Decisions. 1983 Yearbook. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1983.
Taba, Hilda. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1962.
Tanner, Daniel and Tanner, Laurel. Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice, 4th ed. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2007.
Tyler, Ralph W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1949.
and Leyton Soto, Mario. Planeamiento Educacional. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria,
1969.
Walker, Decker F. A Naturalistic Model for Curriculum Development. School Review 80, no. 1
(November 1971): 5167.
Walker, Decker F. and Soltis, Jonas F. Curriculum and Aims. New York: Teachers College Press, 2004.
. Fundamentals of Curriculum: Passion and Professionalism, 2nd ed. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
Wiles, Jon and Bondi, Joseph. Curriculum Development: A Guide to Practice, 7th ed. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2007.
Zais, Robert S. Curriculum: Principles and Foundations. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Chapter 19.
Zenger, Weldon F. and Zenger, Sharon K. Planning for Curriculum Development: A Model for
Administrators. NASSP Bulletin 68, no. 471 (April 1984): 1728.