MODULE

IN

ED 740-CURRICULUM DESIGN AND

DEVELOPMENT

BY

FIRMA CACCAM VIRAY, Ph. D.

Professor

And

ESTRELITA TOLENTINO GAMIT, Ph.D.

Asso. Professor

OPEN UNIVERSITY
CENTRAL LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY
SCIENCE CITY OF MUNOZ, NUEVA ECIJA
PHILIPPINES

INTRODUCTION
The excellence in the program in any institution reflects the quality of program

planning and development. Education is no exception: the quality of individual school

programs varies quite directly with the quality of program planning. The programs of

individual schools, classrooms and of individual students usually mirror distinctly the nature

and extent of the planning and development of these programs by teacher and students

(Saylor and Alexander, 1966).

 Curriculum development is a complex undertaking. Its complexity and difficulty are

perhaps heightened by the usual absence of a set of clear ideas or models and planning and

the how and theory of curriculum planning and development (Beauchamp, 1961).

ASSUMPTIONS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING (Saylor and Alexander, 1966)

1. Quality in educational program has priority in educational goals.

2. The curriculum itself must be dynamic and ever changing as new developments

and needs in our society arise.

3. The process of curriculum planning must be continuous, not limited and must be

dynamic.

4. No master curriculum plans will serve all schools.

5. Many individuals participate in curriculum planning.

6. Procedures of curriculum planning vary from system to system, from school to

school, and from classroom to classroom, but they must be logical, consistent and

identifiable in each situation.

MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

The term “model” as discussed by Oliva (1982) rates with scenario as one of the most

abused words in current English usage. While a scenario may turn out to be any plan or series

of events, a model may be a tried or untried scheme. It may be a programmed solution to

specific problems or it may be a microscopic pattern proposed for replication or a grander

scale.

Some of the models are simple, others are very complex. Within a given area of

specialization (administration, instruction, supervision, or curriculum development), models

may differ but bear great similarities. The individual models are often refinements or

revisions, frequently major, often minor, of already existing models.

The educational consumers, i.e., the practitioners to whom the model is directed has

the heavy responsibility of selecting one model in their particular field. If the practitioners

are not disposed to apply models they discovered, they may as well design their own or, as

the case may be, to put all together and come out with a working model as guide in

curriculum planning.

2
 By examining models for curriculum development, we can analyze the phases the

originators or authors conceived as essential to the process of curriculum development. A

model must show phases or components, not people. The specification of curriculum goals

must 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 and to school board (Oliva, 1982).

THE TYLER MODEL

One of the best known models for curriculum development with special attention to

the planning phases.

Figure 1. Tyler’s Model

Source Source Source

Student Society Subject

Tentative general objectives

Screen Screen

Philosophy Psychology
of Education of Learning

Precise Instructional Objectives

Selection of
Learning experiences

Organization of
Learning experiences

Direction of
Learning experiences

Evaluation of
Learning experiences

3
 It proposed a comprehensive model for curriculum development. The
first part of this model: the selection of objectives receives the greatest attention
from other educators. Tyler recommended that curriculum planners identify
general objectives by gathering data from the sources: the learners,
contemporary life outside the school, and the subject matter. The numerous
general objectives are refined by filtering them through two screens: (1)
educational and social philosophy of the school and (2) the psychology of
learning and become specific instructional objectives.
In describing general objectives Tyler referred to them as “goals”,
“educational objectives”, and “educational purposes”. He further stated that the
curriculum worker must begin analyzing data relevant to student needs and
interest. These are educational, social, occupational, physical, psychological
and recreational. He recommended observations by teachers, interviews with
students, interviews with parents, questionnaires and tests as techniques for
collecting data about students. By examining these needs, the curriculum
developer identifies a set of potential objectives.
The next step in the process of general objectives is the analysis of
contemporary life in both the local community and the society. From the needs
of society flow many potential educational objectives.
For the source the curriculum planner turns to the subject matter, the
disciplines themselves. From the three aforementioned sources, curriculum
planners derive a multiplicity of general or broad objectives. Once this array of
possible objectives is determined, a screening process is necessary to eliminate
unnecessary and unimportant and contradictory objectives. Tyler advises the
use of the school’s educational and social philosophy as the first screen of these
goals.
In the Philosophical screen, Tyler advises teachers of a particular school
to formulate educational and social philosophy and to outline values by
emphasizing four democratic goals:
 the recognition of every individual as a human being regardless of his
race, national, social and 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;

4
  faith and intelligence as a method of dealing with important problems
rather than depending upon the authority of an autocratic or
aristocratic group.

In the Psychological screen, the teachers must clarify the principles

of learning that they believe to be sound. “A psychology of learning as
emphasized by Tyler not only includes specific and definite findings but
is a unified formulation of theory of learning which helps to outline the
nature of the learning process, how it takes place, under what
conditions, what sort of mechanism operate and the like.” Tyler
explains the significance of the psychological screen in the following
statements:
 Knowledge in 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 in 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 to attain 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.

In Fig. 2, Tyler’s model describes 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”. And teachers must give
attention to learning experiences in order to:
a) develop skill in thinking
b) helpful in acquiring information
c) helpful in developing social attitude
d) helpful in developing interest

THE LEYTON SOTO MODEL

Leyton Soto observed the linear nature of the Tyler model and the
separation of the three sources of objectives. He eliminated some of the
objectives in the Tyler model and added some of his refinements and
clarifications as seen in Fig. 3. He charted three basic elements: philosophy,
psychology and sources; three basic processes: selection, organization, and
evaluation; and three fundamental concepts: objectives, activities, and

5
experiences. Significantly he showed clearly the interrelationship among the
various components of the model. He distinguished between learning
experiences and learning activities. He defined objectives as the combination of
experiences that the learner tries to achieve. Furthermore these experiences are
the behaviors that are written into the objectives and activities are selected and
organized, but only experiences, i.e. the terminal behaviors, are evaluated.
Thus, the Leyton model presented an integrated or comprehensive model for
curriculum development from the point of selecting objectives to the point of
evaluating experiences.

Figure 3. Leyton Soto’s integrated model

I. Basic elements

Philosophy
Psychology

Sources
1. The learner
2. Contemporary life
3. Subject matter

II. Basic processes

Selection
Organization

Evaluation

Objectives
Experiences

Activities

6
 III. Fundamental concepts

THE TABA MODEL

Taba took what is known as grassroots approach to curriculum development. She

believed that the curriculum must be designed by teachers rather than handed down by higher
authority. She felt that teachers should begin the process by creating specific teaching-
learning units for their students rather than creating a curriculum design. She advocated an
inductive approach to curriculum development, starting with specifics and building up to
general design and working down to specifics.

Taba’s five steps sequence for accomplishing curriculum change.

1. Production by teachers of pilot teaching-learning units representative of the

grade level or subject area.

a. Diagnosis of needs.
b. Formulation of objectives.
c. Selection of content.
d. Organization of content.
e. Selection of learning experiences.
f. Organization of learning experiences.
g. Determination of what to evaluate and the ways and means of doing it.
h. Checking for balance and sequence.

2. Testing experimental units.

3. Revising and consolidating.
4. Developing a framework.
5. Installing and disseminating new units.

THE SAYLOR AND ALEXANDER MODEL

Figure 4 shows the curriculum process in the model of Saylor and Alexander. Their
definition of curriculum is “a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities to achieve
broad educational goals and related specific objectives for an identifiable population served
by a single school center. “Yet it is not to be conceived as a single document but rather as
many smaller plans for particular portions of the curriculum”.

Figure 4. Saylor and Alexander model

Bases (external variables)

Goals, objectives
and domains

Curriculum plan
(Arrangement of internal variables by planners
responsible for plans to achieve within each

7
 curriculum domain selected in the entire plan,
the particular goals and objective for each
domain and the total plan).

Curriculum designing Curriculum implementation Curriculum evaluation

(Instruction)

Decisions as to designs made Decision as to instructional Decision as to evaluative

by the responsible curriculum modes made by the procedures for determining
planning groups for a responsible teachers. The learner progress made by
particular school center. curriculum plan includes responsible teachers. Decision
Various prior decisions by alternative modes with as to evaluative procedures for
political and social agencies suggestion as to evaluating the curriculum plan
may limit resources media, organization, made by responsible planning
the final designs thus, encouraging flexibility group. Evaluative data become
and more freedom for the bases for decision making in
teachers and students further planning.

(Feedback)

Goals, Objectives and Domain

The model indicates that the curriculum planners begin by specifying the major
educational goals and specific objectives they wished to accomplish. Each major goal
represents a curriculum domain.
The goals and objectives are selected after consideration of external variables, among
which are legal requirements, educational research, regional accreditation standards, views of
community groups and others.

Instructional Modes

At this point of the model, the teachers would then specify the instructional objectives
before selecting the strategies or modes of the presentation.

Evaluation

Finally, the curriculum planners and teachers engage in evaluation must choose from
a wide variety of evaluation techniques. Alexander and Saylor urge a comprehensive
approach to evaluation that would permit assessment of the total educational program of the
school and must include the curriculum plan, the effectiveness of instruction, and the
achievement of the learners. Through evaluation processes, curriculum planner can determine
whether or not, the goals of the school and the objectives of the school have been met.

THE OLIVA MODEL

The model shown in Figure 5 represents the most essential components that can be

readily expanded into extended model that provides additional detail and simplified process.

8
 Another Oliva’s model is shown in Figure 6. It is a comprehensive; step by step

process that takes the curriculum planner from the sources of curriculum to evaluation. It has

Figure 5. A model for curriculum development (Oliva, 1976)

Statement Statement Statement Design

Of Of Of Of Implemen- Evaluation
Philosophy Goals Objectives Plan tation

twelve components. The square represents planning phases and the circles, operational

phases.

In Component I, it states the aim of education and their philosophical and

psychological principles. These aims are beliefs that are derived from the needs of the

individual and society, which incorporate concept similar to Tyler’s “screen”.

Components II requires an analysis of the needs of the community in which the

schools are located as well as the needs of the students and the exigencies of the subject

matter that will be taught in school.

Components III & IV call for specifying curricular objectives based on Components I

& II. The tasks of Component V are to organize and implement the curriculum, to formulate

and establish the structure by which the curriculum will be organized.

In Components VI & VII an increasing level of specification is sought. Instructional

goals and objectives are stated for each level of the subject. At this point it distinguish how

the goals and objectives differ.

Component VIII shows how the curriculum worker chooses instructional strategies

for use with students in the classroom. Simultaneously, the curriculum worker initiates Phase

A of Component IX, Preliminary selection of evaluation technique. At this stage, the planner

thinks ahead and begins to consider ways she will assess students’ achievement. The

implementation of instructional strategies follows-Component X.

Component XI is the stage when evaluation of instruction is carried out. Component

XII completes the cycle with evaluation not of the student or of the teacher but rather of the

curricular program.

9
 The 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 of continuous revision of the

components of the respective sub cycles.

SUMMARY

Five models of curriculum development are presented in this report. Models can help

us educators, planners and administrators to conceptualize a process by certain principles and

procedures. Some models are embellished with diagram, others are simply lists of steps that

are recommended to curriculum workers.

Those who take leadership in curriculum development are encouraged to become

familiar with various models, to try them out, and to select and develop a model that is most

understandable and feasible to them and to the persons with whom they are working.

In looking at various models we cannot say that any model is inherently superior to

all other models. Some planners have followed one model, which they used for a

considerable length of time with considerable success. On the other hand, it does not mean

that a model represents the ultimate in models for curriculum improvement or that all

educators are satisfied with it.

According to Oliva, (1986) he pointed that before choosing a model or designing a

curriculum, curriculum planners should attempt to outline the criteria they would look for in

a model for curriculum improvement. A model must show the following component: 1)

major components of the process; 2) Customary, but not inflexible, “beginning and ending”

points; 3) the relationship between curriculum and instruction; 4) distinction between

curricular and instructional goals; 5) reciprocal relationship between components; 6) a

10
cyclical rather than a linear pattern; 7) feedback lines; 8) the possibility of entry at any point

of the cycle; 9) an internal consistency and logic; 10) enough simplicity to be intelligible; 11)

components in the form of a diagram or chart.

Furthermore, the function of a curricular model must accomplish two purposes: 1)

suggests a system to follow; 2) serves as the framework for explanation of phases or

components of the process for curriculum improvement.

IMPLICATION

Curriculum development models are very important in guiding teachers,

administrators and educational planners to verify whether the institution is implementing the

needs of the clientele they are serving.

Every model has its own goals and objectives based on the needs of individuals,

community and the society as a whole. The implementation process lies on the teachers as

disseminators of learning and education.

No matter how simple or complicated the model, the life of any curricular model lies

on the process of implementation. One must take into consideration that whatever model one

wants to adapt or use, some maybe good for one, but some do not follow suit.

In this case, educators must not confine only to just one model but be receptive to other types of

models that one thinks will suit the type of curriculum offerings.

Home Economics is a curriculum, which contribute to the improvement of human beings and

society. Its aim and goals are oriented in this direction - improvement of life. In this regard, the Home

Economics curriculum must always evaluate its goals and objectives. If necessary, realign these goals and

objectives to the needs of the students, community and society to fit in with the new technology that are

11
taking place in the world. The curriculum must be dynamic and adaptable to change, versatile and

practical to be readily implemented.

At this point, teachers as implementors of change, must be ready to accept changes, willing to

learn and adapt changes, must be knowledgeable to current issues and the needs of the students,

community and society as a whole.

The incorporation of all these are necessary components of a good curriculum. Moreover, Home

Economists must work hand and hand, cooperate with each other for the improvement of the Home

Economics curriculum.

As one Educator says “Education is one institution that plays a peculiar role in the preservation or

the transformation of society”. This role becomes all the more very crucial considering mass education

today. Therefore, given this role in education, Home Economists must take on the general task in

promoting social transformation, value education and economic upliftment of the people.

The present task calls for teachers to be encouraged to participate seriously in the development of

curriculum that would contribute to the ultimate improvement of the people it serves. And this is achieved

only through organized efforts of each of us in the educational profession.

12