UNIT THREE

If human beings are unable to perceive critically the themes of their time, and thus to

intervene in reality, they are carried along in the wake of change. They see that the times

are changing, but they are submerged in that change and so cannot discern its dramatic

significance. And a society beginning to move from one epoch to another requires the

development of an especially flexible, critical spirit. Lacking such a spirit, human beings

cannot perceive the marked contradictions which occur in society as emerging values in

search of affirmation and fulfilment clash with earlier values seeking self-preservation.

Paulo Freire

3. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT MODELS

Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:
• Clearly explain with the aid of a diagram, the:
- Rational models
- Cyclical models
- Dynamic models
• Evaluate each of the models in this unit by discussing its strengths and
weaknesses.
• Describe the main features of each model.
• Explain the importance of each model to curriculum development today.

In order for you to understand the context of the stages of curriculum development
presented in unit four, it is necessary to appreciate the range of models that you can
employ in curriculum development and have a clear understanding of each of them.

1
Since this unit is a bit longer than the ones that you have read earlier, a set of revision
questions are provided for you at the end of each model. Take some time to answer
them so that you would assess yourself as to whether you have understand each of
these very important models which you may employ in curriculum design and
development.

Curriculum Practice
There is substantial evidence from literature, research and by observation that
classroom teachers in most African countries are not actively involved in curriculum
development. Moreover those who are involved in curriculum development centres are
not at home with curriculum models. Some of the reasons forwarded for this situation
are:
1. Lack of teacher understanding of curriculum models and the processes of
curriculum development.
2. Insufficient experience, both practically and theoretically, with curriculum
models. 3. Inadequate amount of time in which to enquire about and apply curriculum
models.
4. Lack of support from colleagues for employing curriculum models.
5. Numerous and frequently conflicting conceptions of the nature of curriculum and
curriculum development.
Regardless the reasons, it is essential that curriculum developers bring a conceptual
to their task.

What is a Model?
According to Graves (1979), a model is a simplified representation of complex reality
which enables us to understand the process of curriculum development better. Killen
(1986) defines a curriculum development model as a means of representing the
components and structure of the curriculum. You can also describe a curriculum
development model as a theoretical framework for designing what students are to learn

2
in a particular subject, based on desired objectives, learning experiences, teaching
techniques and evaluation procedures.
A model is often depicted in diagrammatic form. The purpose of a model is to provide
a structure for examining the variables that constitute reality as well as their
interrelationship. Thus, curriculum development use models to examine the elements
of a curriculum and how those elements interrelate. In curriculum we frequently use
graphical models as they enable curriculum developers to visualize curriculum
elements, their relationships, and the processes of development, implementation and
evaluation.

3.1 The Rational /Objective Models

The objectives model was first proposed by Ralph Tyler (1949). Also referred to as the
rational, academic or classical model these approaches to the curriculum process
emphasize the fixed sequence of curriculum elements, beginning with objectives and
following a sequential pattern from objectives to content, method and finally evaluation.
In this pattern objectives serve as a basis for devising subsequent elements, with
evaluation indicating the degree of achievement of those objectives.
Two principal proponents of rational models are Ralph Tyler and Hilda Taba.

3.1.1 Ralph Tyler’s Objective Model

In his seminal work Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949), Tyler argued
that curriculum development needed to be treated logically and systematically. His
book attempted to explain ‘… a rationale for viewing, analyzing and interpreting the
curriculum and instruction program of an educational institution.’ Further, he argued
that to develop any curriculum, one had to pose four fundamental questions:

What educational purpose should the school seek to attain?

What educational experiences are likely to attain these objectives?

3
How can these educational experiences be organized effectively?
How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

Sometimes referred to as the father of the curriculum movement, Tyler sought to instill
in developers of curricula a more logical, systematic, meaningful approach to their task.
His work has been underrated by some curriculum writers because of the rigid nature
of his objectives model. However, over time much of his work has been misinterpreted,
treated superficially and even ignored. Brady (1992) for example in referring to the four
questions posed above, suggests that: ‘The four steps are sometimes simplified to
read “objectives”, “content”, “method”, and “evaluation”. And yet Tyler quite
emphatically referred to ‘learning experiences in question two as ‘ … the interaction
between the learner and the external conditions in the environment to which he can
react’ (1949:63).

Figure 3.1. Tyler’s model of Curriculum process

Objectives What educational purposes should the school seek

to attain?

Selecting What educational experiences can be provided

Of learning experiences that are likely to attain these purposes?

Organising
Learning experiences How can these educational experiences be
effectively organized?

Evaluation How can we determine whether these purposes

are being attained?

4
Source: Tyler, 1949

In addition some writers on curriculum development have argued that Tyler doesn’t
adequately explain the source of objectives (Skilbeck, 1976; Kliebard, 1970). Yet Tyler
devotes half of his book to just that task. He describes and analyses sources of
objectives that come from learners, studies of contemporary life, academic subjects,
philosophy and the psychology of learning.

Indeed Tyler has had a significant effect upon curriculum developers, scholars and
writers for the past three decades. As shown in figure 3.1 above, Tyler saw the task of
curriculum development as a logical, sequential resolution to the four questions posed.
Once objectives had been determined, appropriate learning experiences could be
selected which in turn would require effective organisation. The final step in
Tyler’s process was to determine whether the objectives had been achieved.

3.1.2 Hilda Taba’s Objective Model

Out of the several books that Taba wrote, the most well known and influential was
Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice (1962). In this book Taba outlined her
approach to the process of curriculum development, modifying Tyler’s model so as to
become more representative of curriculum development. While still linear in approach,
Taba argued for more information input at each stage of the curriculum process. She
particularly suggested a dual consideration of content (logical organisation of the
curriculum) and the individual learner (psychological organisation of the curriculum).
To emphasise her point, Taba claimed that all curricula are composed of fundamental
elements. ‘A curriculum usually contains some selection and organization of content.’

5
Figure 3.2. Taba’s model of the curriculum process

Step 1. Diagnosis of needs

Step 2. Formulation of objectives
Step 3. Selection of content
Step 4. Organisation of content
Step 5. Selection of learning experiences
Step 6. Organisation of learning experiences
Step 7. Determination of what to evaluate and ways and means of doing
it

Taba argued for a rational, sequential approach to curriculum development rather than
a rule-of-thumb procedure. Furthermore, to be rational and scientific in one’s approach,
Taba claimed that decisions on the fundamental elements should be made according
to valid criteria. These criteria may come from various sources – from tradition, from
social pressure and from established habits. The differences between curriculum
decision-making which follows a scientific method and develops a rational design and
one which does not is that in the former the criteria for decisions are derived from a
study of the factors constituting a reasonable basis for the curriculum. In our society at
least, these factors are the learners, the learning process, the culture demands and
the content of the disciplines. Thus, Taba, contended scientific curriculum
development needs to draw upon analyses of society and culture, studies of the
learner and the learning process, and analysis of the nature of knowledge in order to
determine the purpose of the education system and the nature of its curriculum.

Finally, Taba claimed that if curriculum development was to be a logical, orderly task,
then one needed to examine closely the order in which curriculum decisions are made
and how they were applied. Taba perceived that the orderly way of developing
curricula would follow seven sequential steps as outlined in figure 3.2.

6
These steps, presented sequentially represent a brief outline of Taba’s systematic,
logical approach to curriculum development. Although she is more expansive than
Tyler, her approach with its emphasis upon the learner comes in part from her
extensive interaction with schools in California. Working with teachers she realized that
they would become the major curriculum developers of the future and a systematic
logical model would be valuable to them.

Strengths of rational models

Tyler and Taba have found the inherent logic that underpins the construction of
curricula, at least from a rationalist perspective. Using the sequence of developing
objectives, formulating content and learning activities and finally evaluating the extent
to which objectives have been achieved, does have an obvious logical, rational appeal
to it.

The very nature of the rational model – its logical, sequential structure – provides it
with a useful base for planning and devising curricula. By providing a recipe-type
approach, these models have simplified what is a confusing, daunting task to many
prospective curriculum developers. Given the pressure that curriculum developers
work under, a rational model provides a straightforward, time-efficient approach to
meeting the curriculum task.

By emphasizing the role and value of objectives, this model forces curriculum
developers to think seriously about their task. By forcing people to conceptualise and
then state objectives, rational thinking is encouraged a clear guide to later planning is
provided. Proponents of this approach argue that all curriculum developers, regardless
of their approach to curriculum, have objectives in mind, although some do not think
about them systematically or state them logically.

7
Should one begin with other elements, such as content or evaluation, one would have
little direction or purpose in curriculum planning and confusion could well result.
Besides one could argue that those developers who commence planning with other
curriculum elements have in reality thought about what they want to achieve, but have
not formalized that thinking or not stated their objectives overtly.

Weaknesses of rational models

Over time it has become increasingly apparent that the objectives model has flaws in
terms of the reality of curriculum development. To a large extent one might claim that
these apparent weaknesses are due to different ways of thinking and approaching
curricula as well as the background experiences.

A significant weakness of the objectives model arises form the unpredictable nature of
teaching and learning. The model prescribes specified objectives to be achieved, but
often learning occurs beyond these objectives due to factors that could not have been
foreseen. For instance, in a geography class certain objectives form the basis of the
ensuing curriculum that is being taught. However, new information becomes available
(a new theory, more information from space experiments, new approaches to
research) that would be both pertinent and useful to the geography curriculum. Should
it be included if it is not consistent with the established objectives? What impact will
this have on other elements of the curriculum? If we include this content does its
inclusion invalidate the curriculum? These are reasonable questions to pose about the
objective model.

Overemphasis on formulating measurable outcomes (such as behavioral objectives)

has caused significant problems for the rational model. With limited time available
some curriculum developers have found themselves spending inordinate amounts of
that scarce commodity on writing precisely phrased behavioural objectives.

8
Finally some critics have frequently criticized Tyler that he does not adequately explain
the sources of objectives. (Kliebard, 1970; Skilbeck, 1976; Marsh, 1986). In part the
answer to this criticism lies in a sound reading of Tyler’s and Taba’s original works
where surprisingly, considerable space is devoted to explaining where objectives
should come from. And in part the answer lies with the use of a nonspecific,
indeterminate term such as ‘adequate’. What is adequate for some is obviously
inadequate for critics.

9
 ACTIVITY

1. Give three reasons why

classroom teachers in most African countries are not
actively involved in curriculum development?
2. i). What is a curriculum development model?
ii). Why are curriculum development models important
in curriculum design?
3. What is the main feature of the rational or academic
models?
4. State the four fundamental questions that Tyler
argued that one needs to pose in order to develop any
curriculum.
5. i) Why have some critics underrated Tyler’s objective
model?
ii) Are these critics right? Explain.
6. What does Hilda Taba mean when she claims that
decisions on the fundamental curriculum elements
should be made according to valid criteria?
7. Explain three strengths of the rational model.

10
3.2 Cyclical models
Cyclical models are basically an extension of the rational models in that they are
essentially logical and sequential in approach. They incorporate elements of both the
rational and dynamic models. However, differences do exist. Most importantly, cyclical
models present the curriculum process as a continuing activity, which is constantly in
a state of change as new information or practices become available. Society pressure
such as the need for well skilled manpower, improved physical health, for instance,
may require re-orientation of aims, and thus content, methods learning activities and
evaluation. In this way the cyclical model is responsive to needs and indeed it is argued
that these needs are ongoing, necessitating constant updating of the curriculum
process.

Secondly, cyclical models view elements of the curriculum as interrelated and

interdependent, so that the distinctions between the elements, as in the rational model
are less clear. For example a developer, who is considering content, may also suggest
ideas for teaching methodology, although the consolidation of these teaching
strategies would come later. Instead of regarding them as rigidly separate categories,
cyclical models more realistically accept a degree of interaction between the various
curriculum elements.

In the 1970s a new element called situational analysis was introduced into the
curriculum process of cyclical models. Situational analysis involves the analysis of
those factors which exist in the environment where the curriculum is to be
introduced. In this way the subsequent curriculum more accurately reflects the needs
of the learners for whom it is intended. This element is integral to the dynamic models.
Of the many cyclical models that are there, two will be discussed in the following
paragraphs. The two that are selected for this study have both been influential over
the past two decades.

11
3.2.1 D. K. Wheeler’s cyclical model
Wheeler (1967), argued in his book Curriculum Process that curriculum developers
should employ a cyclical process in which the elements are related and interdependent
to each other. His approach to curricula development as mentioned earlier is still
essentially rational in nature. Each phase is a logical development of the preceding
one, thus one phase cannot be attempted until some work has been done in a
preceding phase.
Wheeler developed and extended the ideas forwarded by Tyler and particularly Taba.
He suggested five interrelated phases in the curriculum development process which
when developed logically would produce an effective curriculum. Though presented in
a different manner the phases incorporate the essential elements outlined by Tyler and
Taba.

Wheeler’s phases
Selection of aims, goals and objectives.
Selection of learning experiences to help achieve these aims, goals and objectives.
Selection of content through which certain types of experiences may be offered.
Organisation and integration of learning experiences and content with respect to the
teaching-learning process.
Evaluation of each phase and the attainment of goals.

12
Figure 3.3 Wheeler’s model of the curriculum process

Source: After D.K. Wheeler, 1967.

Wheeler’s greatest contribution to curriculum development is his emphasis on the

cyclical nature of the curriculum process and the interdependent nature of the
curriculum elements and this contribution has stood the test of time well. As outlined
in figure 3.3, the diagram shows how the rational approach is still evident by requiring
curriculum developers to follow steps 1 through 5 in a sequential pattern.
The figure also indicates that these steps are in continuous cycles that respond to
changes within education.

13
3.2.2 Audrey and Howard Nicholls cyclical model
In their book Developing a Curriculum: A Practical Guide (1978), Audrey and Howard
Nicholls devised a cyclical approach that covered the elements of curriculum briefly
but succinctly. The Nicholls model emphasized the logical approach to curriculum
development, particularly where the need for new curricula emerged from changed
situations. They argued that ‘ … change should be planned and introduced on a
rational and valid basis according to a logical process, and this has not been the case
in the vast majority of changes that have already taken place’ (Nicholls & Nicholls,
1978:17).

Figure 3.4 Nicholls model of the curriculum process

Source: After A. and H. Nicholls, 1978.

14
They refined the work of Tyler, Taba and Wheeler by emphasizing the cyclical nature
of the curriculum process and the need for a preliminary step – a situational analysis.
They further contended that before the more obvious elements in the curriculum
process are undertaken, the context or situation in which curriculum decisions are
made requires detailed and serious consideration. Situation analysis then is a
preliminary stage upon the curriculum they are devising. The Nicholls assets that the
five interdependent stages needed in this continuous curriculum process are:
Situation analysis
Selection of objectives
Selection and organization of content
Selection and organization of methods
Evaluation
The inclusion of the situation analysis phase was a deliberate move to enable
curriculum developers to be more responsive to their environment and particularly to
the needs of the learners. They also argued for a much wider and more comprehensive
approach to diagnosis , an analysis of all the factors which make up the total situation
followed by the use of knowledge and insights derived from this analysis in curriculum
planning.

Strengths of cyclical models

While cyclical models incorporate the advantages inherent in objective models, they
also overcome many of the latter’s disadvantages as well. Thus, cyclical models exhibit
the strengths derived from a logical sequential structure upon which curricula may be
devised. For example, such models, by emphasizing the role of aims, goals and
objectives, require the curriculum developer to have conceptualized the task before
proceeding. This enhances rational thinking with the probability that a more effective
curriculum will result.

By employing situational analysis as a starting point, cyclical models provide baseline

data upon which effective objectives may be devised. Although Wheeler did not refer

15
to situational analyses specifically, he did examine the sources of aims and goals.
Certainly objectives cannot be phrased in a vacuum and it is the data, both quantitative
and qualitative (including intuitive), that are obtained by undertaking a situational
analysis that helps curriculum developers make effective decisions.

The nature of cyclical modes is such that the various elements of curriculum are seen
to be in continuous motion, able to cope with new situations and consequently reacting
to changing circumstances. The model is flexible in that as the situation changes so
corresponding changes are made to subsequent elements of the model. The model
allows for, and indeed demands, a revision of the new situation and subsequent
changes to the other curriculum elements.
In countries where the curriculum is decentralized, the cyclical models being less rigid
in their application, are more relevant to school situations and hence are more
appropriate to curriculum development by teachers.

Weaknesses of cyclical models

Inherent weaknesses within cyclical models are more difficult to locate largely because
curriculum developers so successfully employ this approach to the curriculum process.
As a model must begin somewhere, the cyclical model commences with a situational
analysis and then proceeds through the successive elements of curriculum.

Once the cycle has been established it is possible that the stimulus for change may be
originated from any curriculum element. For instance where a school curriculum is in
operation the need to revise the cycle may originate with new content, a different
approach to teaching-learning being adopted from the results of an evaluation.
Nevertheless, once the stimulus for revision has been initiated within the cycle, it needs
to run its course as it impacts on subsequent elements.

16
A second weakness of this model arises for many people from its apparently logical
and sequential nature. For many, cyclical models are little different from rational
models and hence maintain the weaknesses described in the rational models.

Third, the manner in which the model is implemented may be construed as a

weakness. A fundamental problem in utilizing such models is the amount of time
required to undertake an effective situational analysis. In order to be well appraised of
the situation, developers must employ numerous techniques to elicit data about the
learning situation. This can become extremely time consuming.

ACTIVITY

1. Cyclical models are essentially an extension of

the rational model. However, there are two major
differences between the two models. Explain
these differences.
2. What is the Nicholls major contribution to
Curriculum development and design?
3. Situational analysis has been identified as a
weakness of the cyclical model. Why is this
argument paradoxical?

17
3.3 Dynamic or Interactive models
The interactive or dynamic models offer an alternative view of the process of the
curriculum development. Proponents of these models argue that the rational and
cyclical models do not reflect the reality of curriculum development in educational
organizations. The curriculum process, they contend does not follow a linear,
sequential pattern. Rather, curriculum development can commence with any
curriculum element and proceed in any order. Indeed, curriculum developers may
move through the various elements of curriculum several times before they are
satisfied with the final curriculum product. Moreover, the needs of learners are seen
as more important in determining curriculum planning than some predetermined set of
information to be acquired.

It should be noted that the dynamic models have emerged from a more descriptive
approach to curriculum where researchers have observed the behaviour of teachers
and developers as they devise curricula. This they argue represents the essential base
for formulating theory. Several writers have produced interpretations of dynamic
models of the curriculum process. However, two significant contributions outlined in
the subsequent paragraphs have been developed by Decker Walker (1971) and
Malcolm Skilbeck (1976).

3.3.1 Decker Walker’s Dynamic Model

In the early 1970s Decker Walker argued that the objective or rational models of the
curriculum process were, contrary to accepted opinion in the literature, neither popular
nor successful. Walker (1971) contended that curriculum developers do not follow the
prescriptive approach of the rational sequence of curriculum elements when they
devise curricula. Rather, they proceed through three phases in their preparation of
curricula as seen in figure 3.5.

18
Figure 3.5 Walker model of the curriculum process

(beliefs theories conceptions points of view aims, objectives)

Platform

Deliberations

(applying them to practical situations, arguing about,

accepting, refusing, changing, adapting

Curriculum Design

(Making decisions about the various process components)

Source: After D. Walker, 1971.

Walker’s model was derived from his analysis of reports on curriculum projects which
he personally participated in. This analysis led him to describe what he saw as a
‘natural’ model of the curriculum process. It is a naturalistic model in the sense that it
was constructed to represent phenomena and relations observed in actual curriculum
projects as faithfully as possible with a few terms and principles.

19
Walker argues that in the first stage, ‘the platform’, curriculum developers recognize
statements. These statements consist a hotchpotch of ideas, preferences, points of
view, beliefs and values that are held about the curriculum. They may not be defined
clearly or even logically, but they form the basis or platform upon which future
curriculum decisions are made by curriculum developers. Walker further suggests that
‘The platform includes an idea of what is and a vision of what ought to be and these
guide the curriculum developer in determining what he should do to realize his vision’
(1971:52).

Once the interaction between individuals begins, they are then said to enter the
deliberation phase. During this phase individuals defend their own platform
statements. Together these events provide a situation where developers seek to clarify
their ideas and reach a consensus. From this apparently chaotic period, the
deliberative phase produces considerable illumination. The deliberation phase is not
precisely laid out in a series of steps or procedures as would occur in an objectives
model. It is a complex randomized set of interactions that eventually achieves an
enormous amount of background work before the actual curriculum is designed.

The final phase of Walker’s model is what he terms ‘design’. In this phase developers
make decisions about the various process curriculum elements. Individuals reach
decisions after extended discussion and compromise. The decisions are then recorded
and these become the basis for a curriculum document or specific curriculum
materials.
To conclude, it is useful to view Walker’s model in comparison with the classical,
objective model that he condemned.

This model is primarily descriptive, whereas the classical model is prescriptive. This
model is basically postulates a beginning (the platform), an end (the design), and
process (deliberation) by means of which the beginning progresses to the end. In

20
contrast, the classical model is a means-end model: it postulates a desired end (the
objectives), 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. (Walker, 1971:58-9)

3.3.2 Malcolm Skilbeck’s Dynamic Model

A former, director of Australia’s Curriculum Development Centre, Malcolm Skilbeck,
posited an alternative interactive or dynamic model. In a well-publicised article,
Skilbeck (1976) suggested an approach for devising curriculum at the school level. To
support his argument he provided a model by which teachers could realistically
develop appropriate curricula.

Figure 3.6 Skilbeck’s model of the Curriculum process.

Situation analysis

Goal formulation

Program building

Interpretation and
implementation

Monitoring, feedback,
Source: After M. Skilbeck, 1976 Assessment, reconstruction

21
Dynamic or interactive models suggest that the curriculum developer may commence
with any curriculum element and proceed in any sequence rather than the fixed
sequence advocated by the rational model. Skilbeck supports this notion, although he
adds that it is important that developers be aware of the source of their objectives. To
understand these sources, he contends, a situational analysis must be undertaken.
The model claims that for school based curriculum development to work effectively,
five steps are required in the curriculum process.
While it is tempting to argue that the apparent logical order of the model is rational by
nature, Skilbeck warns not to fall into the trap. He suggests that curriculum developers
may commence their planning at any of the five stages and proceed in any order,
perhaps even handling different stages concurrently. Thus the model outlined does not
presuppose a means-end analysis at all; it simply encourages teams or groups of
curriculum developers to take into account different elements and aspects of the
curriculum development process, to see the process as an organic whole and to work
in a moderately systematic way.

Strengths of interaction models

Proponents of dynamic models of the curriculum process claim that these are far more
realistic ways of handling curriculum development. By avoiding the obsession with
writing objectives, and indeed behavioural objectives at that, developers are free to be
more creative. Certainly there is substantial teacher resentment to the writing of
excessive number of objectives, particularly when they are required to be expressed
in behavioural terms. Thus interactive models are more realistic, feasible procedures
for curriculum development, especially from the viewpoint of the overworked
classroom teacher.

Such models also offer developers considerable flexibility when approaching the
development task. This flexibility emerges from the suggestion that developers may

22
commence at any point in the curriculum process that is appropriate to their needs.
Certainly the objectives model, and to a lesser extent the cyclical model, require
developers to proceed in a rigid, sequential order. Furthermore, dynamic models allow
for flexible movement within the curriculum process so that developers may move
about in any order of events, retrace their steps and proceed in whatever way they find
preferable. This lack of constraint is prized highly by many developers of curriculum.

Finally, it can be argued that interaction models reflect the reality of curriculum
development, albeit complex and confusing. By reflecting the situation, particularly in
schools, it can be claimed that a more suitable, less dysfunctional approach is
advocated to those learning the task of curriculum development.

Weaknesses of interaction models

Interactive models provide little guidance to curriculum developers and this facilitates
confusion rather that clarity. A question that is often asked by opponents of interaction
models is – How do you know where you going if you pose few or no objectives? If
objectives provide guidance and direction, the argument goes, then they must be
stated in order to be effective. Although Skilbeck refers to goals, he plays down their
impact, particularly in terms of their planning capabilities. Walker also refers to aims
and objectives but sees them as only one of several factors that comprise platform
statements. Thus one important weakness of models, some would claim, is the lack of
emphasis placed on the construction and use of objectives and the direction they can
provide.

It could also be claimed that by not following a logical sequence in developing curricula,
curriculum developers waste significant amounts of time meandering around the
curriculum maze, spending time in the deliberative stage is time lost from effective
development and, in turn, this may partly account for the curriculum confusion evident
in schools.

23
They are numerous weaknesses with the interaction model of the curriculum process.
However, this must be tempered with the knowledge that other approaches to devising
curricula have weaknesses as well.

ACTIVITY

1. Why do the proponents of the interactive models say

that the academic and cyclical models do not reflect
the reality of curriculum development?
2. How is Walker’s model naturalistic?
3. Summarize Walker’s model with a sentence for each
phase.
4. Why does Skilbeck suggest that a situational
analysis must be undertaken at the beginning of the
curriculum development process?
5. How do Interactive models offer developers
flexibility in their approach to the development task?
6. Which weakness of the dynamic models brings
about a difference with the rational model?

24
REFERENCES

Bishop, G. (1985). Curriculum Development; A Textbook for Students. London:

Macmillan Education Ltd.
Brady, L. (1992). Curriculum Development in Australia. 4th edn. Sydney:
Prentice-Hall.
Cole, C. (2003). The Development of a Curriculum for Spinal Surgeons.
http:www.eurospine.org.com
Eisner, W. H. (1985). The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of
School Programmes. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Fafunwa, A. B. (1984). History of Education in Nigeria. London: George Allen and
Unwin.
Farrant, J. S. (1980). Principles and Practice of Education. London: Longman

Glotthorn, A. (1987). Curriculum Leadership. Illinois: Scott Foresman.

Hist, P. (1968). ‘The Contribution of Philosophy to the Study of Curriculum’ in J. Kerr

(ed) Changing the Curriculum. London: University of London Press.
Kerr, J. F. (1968). Changing the Curriculum. London: University of London Press.

Kliebard, H. (1970). ‘The Tyler rationale’. School Review 78, 2.

Lawton, D. et al. (1978). Theory and Practice of Curriculum Studies. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Marsh, C. (1986). Curriculum: An Analytical Introduction. Sydney: Novak.

Mbiti, D. M. (1981). An Introduction to Education. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.

Mc Neil, J, D. (1985). Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introducation. Boston: Little

Brown.

25
Nacino, R. B, Oke, F. E. & Brown, D. P. (1994). Curriculum and Instruction: An
introduction to methods or teaching. Lagos: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Nicholls, A. & Nicholls, A. H. (1978). Developing a Curriculum: A Practical Guide. 2nd
ed. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Nyerere, J. (1967). Education for Self-Reliance. Dar es Salaam: Government Printer.

Oluoch, G. P. (1982). Essentials of Curriculum Development. Nairobi: Elimu

Bookshop Ltd.
Print, M. (1993). Curriculum Development and Design. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin
Pty Ltd.
Skilbeck, M. (1976). School – based Curriculum Development and Teacher
Education. Mimeograph. OECD.
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School – based Curriculum Development. London: Marper and
Row.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York:
Macmillan Co. Inc.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Walker, J. & Evers, C. (1988). ‘The Epistemological Unity of Education Research’ in J.
Keeves (ed) Education Research, Methodology and Measurement. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Walker, D. F. (1971). ‘A naturalistic model for Curriculum development’ School
Review 80, 1, pp 51 – 65.
Wheeler, D. K. (1967). Curriculum Process. London: University of London Press.

Wheeler, D. K. (1978). Curriculum Process. London: Hodder and Stonghton.

Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (1989). Curriculum Development. Columbus, Ohio: Merill.

26
Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum: Principles and Foundations. New York: Harper and
Row.

27