MODELS IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

In a curriculum development there are models that serve as guide to help the teachers to plan and create an excellent curriculum to have a more precise tool for teaching. One of these is the objective model which is developed by Tyler. This model is also called the mean-end model because what needs to be achieved must be realized with planning of methods and strategies to be implemented. Tyler stressed that the school should identify the purpose of its existence, how can it be addressed, how can this be materialized and how can this be known that it succeeded. With these questions, there is now the advent of logical sequences with appropriate learning experience to be observed and careful evaluation. So, this model follows a definite process – 4 steps which require a definite outcome. The first is to identify a specific objective that needs to be attained which is actually the most critical or hardest part since steps 2 to 4 will only follow suit. In other words, after identifying what objectives to be achieved selecting learning experience or what content to be introduced will be promptly made as well as organizing this learning experience or analyzing what will be the methods used. Then, evaluation will follow if these things had been successfully accomplished. In general, the objective model is a fixed structure that must begin in creating objectives and after which, are the means on how to attain this end.

Advantages:

·         There is a vivid direction on the learning process and a concrete guide on what are the things that needs to be done because the objectives are presented very clearly.

·         There is a systematized flow of curriculum for proper implementation.

·         There is rationality of the sequence of the curriculum elements.

Disadvantages:

·         Basically the curriculum development is evolving so there is no such thing as fixed as what this model is advocating.

·         The core of its curriculum objective is insufficiently discussed.

·         It cannot measure the learning outcomes.

·         It limits the capabilities of students to learn more in different ways and aspects.

·         No coherence between the end and means.

·         Students’ performance cannot be predicted without knowing first the students consequently there’s no assurance of how effective it is.

·         Results vary and are difficult to measure so it is not good to prejudge the learning abilities of the students.

·         Not necessarily that education objective will be identified first because it may not be relevant to all other subject matter.