Journal of In-Service Education

ISSN: 0305-7631 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie18

The Need for Teacher Training in Curriculum

Development

Naama Sabar & Nitza Shafriri

To cite this article: Naama Sabar & Nitza Shafriri (1981) The Need for Teacher
Training in Curriculum Development, Journal of In-Service Education, 8:1, 22-27, DOI:
10.1080/0305763810080105

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305763810080105

Published online: 12 Sep 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14146

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20
The Need for Teacher Training in Curriculum Development
Naama Sabar and Nitza Shafriri
School of Education, Tel Aviv University
One of the most important methods of introducing
educational changes is through new curricula, and like
most induced changes, the success of any new curri-
culum depends upon an appropriate level of qualified
input on the part of many individuals at different
stages of the change process; this involves the follow-
ing stages: First, the design and development of a new
curriculum, which is generally handled by a specialised
development team; next, a dissemination process
handled by the same team and/or their agents; and
finally, the implementation stage, which should be
accomplished primarily by regular teachers.
This breakdown of responsibilities for the different
stages of curriculum development stems from the
activities of the innovative curricular movement
which began in the late 1950s, and stressed the res-
ponsibility of professional curriculum centres in the
introduction of educational changes. This movement
was influenced by the guiding theories, chiefly that of
Tyler (1950) and later on the naturalistic approach of
Walker (1971), behind these centres and a strategy of
centralisation was adopted. The centres topped down
their materials on the field which acted as a feedback
source (Connelly, 1972).
Until about 1970, the curriculum centre's atten-
tion was mainly on formulation and development and
less on the implementation stage (Eden, 1979). How-
ever, in recent years dissatisfaction with the level of
learning in the classroom despite the new curricula —
has led to a growing awareness of the need to examine
the effective utilisation of new curricula by teachers
and pupils (Goodlad, 1977). One of the principal
conclusions to be drawn from these studies is that,
while external centralised curriculum-development
bodies are valuable for attracting skilled personnel,
have access to various sources of specialists and can
mobilise the other necessary resources for the con-
struction of high quality materials, they also suffer
from one serious disadvantage: their remoteness from
the classroom. Too often, it is found that a curriculum
offered by an external centre conceives of its users in
terms of an 'average' and this is not an adequate
solution for the learning conditions faced by individual
teachers and classes.
Furthermore, assuming the latter difficulty is over-
come and a suitable curriculum is developed, we have
22
seen that the dialogue between development teams
and teachers in the field — the latter usually voicing
their opinions and needs through the intermediary of
selected trial teachers rather than through a more rep-
resentative cross-section of regular teachers — is not
sufficient to bring about implementation of the curri-
culum with the development team's intentions in
their 'spirit'. Misunderstandings of the components of
the curriculum and of the 'spirit of the curriculum'
often have negative results in terms of the developers'
intentions regarding their innovations.
We feel that solutions to these problems require
old approaches with new modifications seeking ways
to establish more fruitful reciprocal relations between
curricular theory and curricular practice. As one of
these ways, this paper suggests a programme for in-
volving teachers in curriculum making through the
improvement of their own understanding in the curri-
culum area by means of experimental workshops in
all phases of curriculum development.
This suggested approach is based on our own expe-
rience and on recent trends in the curriculum field
that view individual teachers as independent profes-
sionals able to define their problems, consult experts
and seek solutions in the form of teaching materials
suited to their conditions and attempting to answer
their pupils' needs (Harlen, 1977; Silberstein, 1979:
Ben-Peretz Shipman, 1978). The element shared by
all these trends is the desire to establish a connection
between the outside developer and the actual needs
of the educational situation in which the teacher im-
plementing the curriculum operates.
Literature Review
Schwab's works (1969, 1971, 1973) were among
the early ones which turned the attention from
theory to practice, where practice means 'choice and
actions'. In contrast to theory which seeks to arrive
at simplification and generalisation, practice deals
with concrete situations and individual cases. Schwab
believes that it is possible to arrive at a proper consi-
deration of the four basic factors in cu rricular decision-
making: the pupil, the teacher, the subject and
society (Schwab, 1973), by means of what he calls
the 'arts of deliberation' in making curricula. The
process of deliberation is described as a complicated
one dealing with both ends and means. It must test
alternatives, consider their 'cost' and results, and
select the most suitable one for the actual situation
(Walker, 1975). Thus, the deliberation process is
essentially the choice of the best alternative, and its
justification on the basis of a particular concept.
In the classic process of curriculum planning,
preference was generally given to consideration and
rationale taken from the structure of knowledge and
of the subject Most teams were composed of profes-
sionals, many of them lacking teaching experience
and some of them unfamiliar with the particular
problems of specific teaching/learning processes. The
teachers' working methods were not taken sufficiently
into account in the curricula, and critics now seek to
alter the role of the teacher in curriculum develop-
ment (Connelly, 1972; Silberstein, 1973; Olson,
1977; Ben-Peretz, 1977).
In what little research has in fact been done on the
curriculum planning processes as carried out by
teachers in the course of their work, it was found that
the teacher does not operate according to the classic
model of Tyler and his followers — systematically
keeping the curricular goals in mind — but rather is
primarily concerned with activities and content
(Shulman, 1979). -
A careful investigation by Taylor (1974) and
Zahorik (1975) of the planning behaviour of teachers
in the course of their work showed similar results and
indicated that teachers are primarily interested in
content, teaching materials and teaching aids. It is
only after that they deal with the component of goals
and evaluation. Shulman (1979) conceives a successful
curriculum as one that enables teachers to be inde-
pendent in making decisions on the questions of what
is most desirable for the pupils. Yet, we find that
most curricula envision the teacher as a person who
hears or reads about innovations and is the means of
achieving the planned aims of the planners in the
centres. In other words, the teacher is viewed as
'realising' or 'interpreting' a curriculum (Silberstein,
1979). The planning needs of the creative teacher are
not considered at all, and developers often failed due
to their unfamiliarity with the actual educational
situation, having produced essentially unteachable
curricula (Tyler, 1975). The knowledge, attitudes and
needs of the teachers were not the point of departure,
and the role of the teacher as a partner in the curri-
cular process was not stressed (Connelly & Ben-
Peretz, 1980). The contribution of teachers in the
field to this classic curriculum development process
was generally conceived of as being carried out by
trial teachers implementing the curriculum according
to the directives of the developers and providing the
feedback needed for the assessment stage and the
composition of the experimental edition (Rudd,
1975).
The above studies focus on the remoteness of the
curricula from the actual educational act, it is the
teacher who has the closest contact to the classroom
situation and thereby can make a unique contribution
to the success of the curriculum (Connelly, 1972).
Connelly objects to the 'top-down' strategy used by
the development centres in the 1960s and shows how
to turn the teacher into an active partner in the
planning process, making a sharp distinction between
outside curriculum-makers and the user-teachers. He
proposes that the outside developers should submit to
the 'users' a well-defined stock of alternatives, along
with empirical reports of research on their effective-
ness under various conditions. Thus, the implement-
ing teachers could select, adapt and modify material
on the basis of specific, practical considerations. With
Connelly's approach the teacher's involvement is
greater than it is when the ready-made product is
merely passed on, but the teacher still plays no active
part in the developing process itself.
In contrast with Connelly's sharp distinction
between the 'outside developers' and the 'user-
developers', Silberstein (1979) believes that 'the
common points of contact between the writing teams
and the teachers also continue during the process of
turning the teaching material into teaching-learning
situations in the classes', and to this end he proposes
three functions for the development team after the
dissemination of the curriculum during the imple-
mentation stage: (1) Exploration of the hidden
aspects of potential of the curriculum; (2) involve-
ment in advanced teacher training; and (3) curriculum
consultation in teacher workshops.
Similarly, the conclusions of the Rand Study
(McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978), which examined the
relationship between introducing changes and the
professional development of teachers' teams, included
a rejection of the 'top-down' planning approach. The
study suggests instead a mutual type of planning in
which the professional curriculum development team
works together with local teachers and principals con-
cerning adjustments for solutions to specific needs.
As mentioned earlier, recent curricular literature
has included approaches presenting the teacher as
creative, independent and autonomous; that have
aimed at ensuring teachers the place they merit in all
stages of the curricular process. These trends aim t o ,
produce 'a curriculum-proof teacher' (Zoller, 1977)
rather than the formerly preferred situation of 'a
teacher-proof curriculum' (Romey, 1973), or as Olsen
(1977) terms it, the 'adaptive approach' rather than
the 'remote control approach'. This latter approach
retains the central position of the teacher" as vital in
23
 the implementation of the curriculum (Olson, 1977;
Ben Peretz, 1978; Silberstein, 1979; Harlen, 1979;
and Shulman, 1979), and consequently propose train-
ing teachers t o cope with content and teaching
methods in two ways: by preparing teaching materials
that teachers can handle in accordance with their in-
clinations, and by training teachers in reasoning selec-
tion and adaptation in accordance with a set of rules.
The education of teachers in this direction must take
many forms, of which the 'teacher's guide' is only
one. Directives given in writing in teacher's guides
have not proven effective in the implementation of
new curricula (Adar & Fox, 1978; Harlen, 1977), nor
has teacher in-service training which is aimed at train-
ing the teachers in the innovative skills involved in the
new curricula. The problem with such training is that
although it may produce short-term results, it does
not equip the teacher to deal with the continuing
need to adapt those same innovations to the ever-
changing classroom conditions (McLaughlin & Marsh,
1978). Taba already in the early sixties (1962) argued
for training so that the teachers will not be merely
recipients of directives, but will discuss real school
problems and will react to innovations by contribut-
ing their own experiences and translating them into
practical learning material.
Therefore, it seems to us that one of the desired
approaches should include experiences that would
have an effect on involvement and participation in
the process of curriculum development associated
with focussing the participants' awareness of the dif-
ferent steps in the process, its rational and delibera-
tions.
Involving teachers in developing curriculum
Participation in curriculum development, which is
a protracted process, is likely to take the teacher
from a conscious phase to one of greater autonomy
and internalisation. This autonomy can develop
gradually, in a supportive environment in which
teachers can operate in teams, developing inter-
personal communication, and being educated toward
greater creativity — which is the principal aim of
modern education.
One of the ways to involve teachers in curricular
research and development is workshops in which
teams of teachers engage in curriculum development
and operate as writing teams, preparing curricula.
Gray (1974) reports on his work with a group of
teachers who developed teaching materials, and
Harlen (1977, 1978) and Prestt (1978) cite examples
of local projects in England undertaken in response to
dissatisfaction with national curriculum development
centres. The 'teachers' centres' that have been
flourishing in England over the past decade are an im-
24
pressive example of this possibility. These centres offer
a new approach to advanced teacher training in its
broadest sense, including the curricular aspect (Bailey,
1971;Thornbury, 1973; Gough, 1975; Rudd, 1975).
One of the clear indicators of the new approach is the
substitution of the term 'in-service education' for the
previously current 'in-service training'. Aside from
many other activities, these centres provide the
opportunity for teachers to join in curriculum con-
struction and, working together with experts, to
produce ideas, teaching materials and teaching aids
for their own use in their classrooms. Thus, curricular
projects developed nationally can be better imple-
mented by teachers in their own communities since
they continue to adapt, improve, develop and modify
the teaching materials even after the construction
team has dispersed.
The teachers' centre trend has reached other
countries as well, among them the US and Canada
(Stabler, 1975). In Israel, too, there have recently
been sporadic experiments in the involvement of
teachers in curriculum development Silberstein et al
(1979) report on teachers' workshops to develop
teaching materials connected with existing curricula.
Ben-Peretz (1977) describes a project conducted by
the curriculum division of Halifa University in which
biology teachers were guided by a curriculum expert.
Another example is the regional teachers' workshop
for developing teaching materials, in. the Lake of
Galilei-Kinneret valley is described below.
Teachers as Curriculum Developers-Experi-
mental Workshops in Curriculum Development
The common denominator in all the approaches,
experiments and recommendations cited is the desire
to assure the teacher a proper place as a partner in all
phases of the planning and development process. The
emphasis is on the involvement of the teachers'
initiative, ability and desire to define their needs, and
their gift for enthusiasm and creativity in the course
of the ongoing implementation of a new curriculum.
All the examples cited brought teachers together in
order to close gaps made by missing or unsatisfactory
learning materials, and teachers that have participated
even once in such a workshop gain experience that
will effect their future teaching. However, none of
the above examples planned systematic in-service
education are equal in priority to production of
materials.
These considerations have impelled us to propose
in-service education in the area of curriculum for
regular teachers, through practical experience in all
phases of the process of curriculum development. In
our view, a workshop of teachers guided by a curri-
culum expert and covering all phases of the develop-
ment of a new curriculum will contribute both to the
enhancement of the professional expertise of the
autonomous teacher and to an increased knowledge
of the subject of the curriculum. Such workshops will
accustom teachers to team work and to the apprecia-
tion of individual and group contributions; will
provide intense, meaningful and continuous experience
in the creative process; and constitute a link between
experimental work and the teachers' current needs.
The basic guidelines for such workshops would be the
following:
a. The workshop will develop a relevant subject,
defined as important and necessary to the
teachers.
b. The teachers will continue in their regular work,
and their deliberations in the workshop will be
an outcome of their personal teaching experience.
c. The teachers will conduct an experiment in their
schools and carry out an evaluation of the teach-
ing units developed in the workshop, getting con-
tinual feedback from the implementing teachers.
d. Through participation in the workshop and
through drawing their attention to curriculum
planning principles, the teachers will gradually
become better utilisers of the curricula in their
schools.
As noted, the experience of developing curricula is
essentially a continuous creative process likely to lead
to the personal autonomous growth of the participat-
ing teachers; we support Dewey's contention that
actual experiencing is needed to internalise the inno-
vation. It may be assumed that teachers participating
in a systematic process of identifying needs; analysing
and formulating goals; planning, testing and evaluat-
ing activiites; expanding professional knowledge; and
acquiring skills in the development and implementa-
tion of curricula will gradually become more effective
and autonomous implementers of new curricula,
more amenable to educational changes, more know-
ledgeable in their chosen field and fully deserving of
the title of senior teachers. In the curricular field, this
approach is likely to result in the production of con-
temporary teaching material that is more suitable to
a particular teacher and pupil population, and that
will open the way for effective utilisation of new
curricula. It is our belief that participating in the pro-
cess of development leads to an increased awareness
of the deliberations behind the curriculum com-
ponents and, therefore to better curricular decisions
in other curriculum concerned situations, as well as
during the implementation of existing curriculum
materials.
Development workshops of this kind are not pro-
posed as substitutes for central major external curri-
culum projects, but as additions to it. The advantages
of a national centre in the subject area and for mobi-
lising resources are unchallenged, but the combination
of local and national curricular activities 'and the
participation of curricular specialists in the guidance
of teachers' workshops will contribute to the expan-
sion and improvement of curricular activity in general,
and to the advancement of the teachers' professional
training in particular.
Further in support of the argument in favour of
teachers' active participation is the proposal submitted
here which has been tried out in teachers' workshop
in the Kinneret Valley (Sabar and Shafriri, 1980).
This workshop which had developed a study unit in
the region of the Lake of Galilei (Kinneret) including
its geographhy, history, economy and its biological,
ecological nature, is described briefly below.
Organisation of the Workshop
The workshop group included nine teachers work-
ing in elementary schools in grades 1-8, who had no
previous experience in curriculum development and
no special training in the subject matter — the region
of Lake Kinneret The group leader was a curriculum
specialist in geography as well as a practising teacher.
In selecting participants the critical criteria used
were: (1) solid experience in teaching in the belief
that, with experience teachers could deliberate on the
requirements of the learner, the teacher, the school,
and the subject matter; (2) motivation to participate
in the process of curriculum development; and (3)
interest in studying and teaching about their region —
a needed subject.
During the school year the teachers were released
from teaching for half a day each week to work in the
team (homework following almost every meeting).
Participation of teachers in the workshop was
authorised by the regional superintendent and sub-
stitutes were provided in their respective schools for
that day. Thirty-six meetings were held in the first
year.
Guidelines and operation of the weekly work-
shop
Five basic elements were interwoven in the work-
shop:
1. Introduction to the principles of curriculum
development.
2. Designing activities aimed to increase students'
knowledge of the region: field trips, reading,
searching for sources, contributions by specialists,
etc.
3. Deliberations on approaches to curriculum
development; decisions about the unit's general
25
 framework, defining objectives and selecting
activities.
4. Development and production of learning materials.
5. Interaction with teachers and schools in the
region, trying out the materials, revising and
modifying them based on feedback collected via
the questionnaire.
In each weekly meeting the workshop dealt with
at least two of these elements. The sequence was
dictated rather by the behaviour of the teachers and
their needs. Thus, for instance, experience in develop-
ment activities preceded the defining of objectives,
and gathering information on the topic preceded dis-
cussions on the general framework. Below is a sample
of the subjects which were dealt with in two of the
thirty-six meetings which were held during the first
year.
Meeting No. 7
(a) Discussion: the approach to the new curricula
(element 1).
(b) Outlining activities during a field trip (2).
(c) Exercise in definitions of operative objectives
(1).
(d) Working in sub-groups, designing field trip activity
on 'The early settlers' (2).
Meeting No. 22
(a) Subgroups developing activities on 'The early
settlers' (element 4).
(b) Collecting feedback from specialists about the
working paper on Topics of the curriculum' (2).
(c) Exploring the sources influencing the definition
of objectives (1).
(d) Final shaping of the working paper on the
'General objectives' (3).
Although there was an outline plan for the workshops,
there was great flexibility in the way in which the five
elements were integrated. Changes were made in the
timetable according to the teachers' demands and the
pace at which the development of the materials
progressed.
The first three elements were emphasised during
the first six months of meetings, resulting in three
working papers: (i) a pool of topics (foci of the
programme), (ii) general objectives, and (iii) the
philosophy and approaches to the programme and its
components (the teacher, student, school and
strategies of teaching).
During the last three months the focus shifted to
the fourth element) in which the efforts of the sub-
groups were devoted to developing and producing
26
learning materials for the suggested topics. These
materials were not elaborated fully, but were offered
as raw material which teachers could work with in
their own way; there are no elaborated student
activities but a resource book and a teachers' guide
with suggestions were produced. This enabled teachers
to act autonomously and gave them the opportunity
for self-expression in using the materials. It also en-
couraged contributions from a greater range of
teachers (element 5) than pre-made materials would
have done. Hopefully, it also raised their level of
awareness of the evolving new curriculum, increased
their sense of active involvement in the process of
development and made them immediately able to
implement what they had developed together.
The fifth element was emphasised the following
summer during an in-service course attended by the
workshop teachers and a new group of about 30
teachers who intended to use the programme in the
autumn. The original group served as tutors for the
new group. Following this course an intensive week-
long workshop was held in which the reactions and
comments of the new teachers were discussed by the
original group. Interaction between the two groups
will continue to provide mutual feedback during the
trials of the developed materials.
In summing up, the encouraging results reported
by the teachers indicate that their experience 'led to
a growth process' which resulted not only in teachers
producing high quality curriculum on regional studies,
but also stimulated the creation of more independence
and initiative on the part of the school thanks to
teachers newly trained in curriculum making, when
faced with curriculum issues and teaching/learning
situations. This workshop demonstrated that regular
teachers can be real contributors to the production of
teachable curriculum materials. There is a need for
many more such enterprises which plan systematic
teacher in-service education neither through develop-
ing new materials or by adapting and revising existing
materials.
The increased demand in Israel coming from
teachers who wish to be helped in how to adapt,
revise and develop learning materials suitable to their
local needs (during the last year many groups of
teachers established production workshops) focussed
a concern over the lack of curriculum co-ordinators
needed for operating such workshops successfully. At
present an attempt is made to study the desirable
competencies of curriculum co-ordinators for teachers
as learning materials developers (Sabar et al, 1980).
Such a study will serve as a basis for planning a syste-
matic and comprehensive in-service programme for
co-ordinators.
References:
Adar, L. & Fox, S., Analysis of a History curriculum and its
implementation in the schools. Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ.
School of Education, 1978, (Hebrew).
Bailey, S.K., Teachers' centres: A British first. Phi Delta
Kappan, 1971, 53 (November), 146-149.
Ben-Peretz, M., Comparative analysis of several biology curri-
cula used in Israeli high schools: Theoretical and practical
considerations in the process of curriculum planning,
Ph.D., dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1977,
(Hebrew).
Ben-Peretz, M. & Lipman, M., Training teaches to implement
curricula: Workbook, Haifa Univ. School of Education,
1978, (Hebrew).
Connelly, F.M., The function of curriculum development.
Interchange, 1972, 3 (2, 3 ) , 161-177.
Connelly, F.M. & Ben-Peretz, M., Teachers' roles in the using
and doing of research and curriculum development,
Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.95-107;
1980.
Eden, S., The implementation of innovations in education. A
case study in Curriculum Planning, Studies in Educational
Evaluation, Monograph Series, No. 2, 1979.
Gough, B., Teachers' centres as providers of in-service educa-
tion, British Journal of In-Service Education, 1975, 1 , (3),
11-14.
Gray, K.R., What can teachers contribute to a curriculum
development? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1974, 6 (2),
158-167.
Goodlad, J.I., What goes on in our schools? Educational
Researcher, 1977, 6, (3), 3-6.
Harlen, W., A stronger teacher role in curriculum develop-
ment?, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1977, 9 (1), 21-29.
Harlen, W., Implementation through involvement in develop-
ment processes. In Tamir, P., et al (eds.), Curriculum Im-
plementation and its Relationship to Curriculum Develop-
ment in Science. Israel Science Teaching Centre, Jerusalem,
1979.
McLaughlin, M.W. & Marsh, D.D., Staff development and
school change. Teacher College Record, 1978, 80 (1),
69-94.
Olson, J.K., Teacher education and curriculum change: Re-
examining the relationship. Curriculum Inquiry, 1977,
7 (1), 61-66.
Prestt, B.M., Take your time: Curriculum development at
your own pace. In Tamir, P. et al (eds.), Curriculum Im-
plementation and its relationship to Curriculum Develop-
ment in Science. Israel Science Teaching Centre,
Jerusalem, 1979.
Romey, W.D., The curriculum proof teacher. Phi Delta
Kappan, 1973, 54, 407-408.
Rudd, Allan, W.G., Teachers' as curriculum developers: A
second generation viewpoint. In P.H. Taylor and J.
Walton (eds.), The curriculum research innovation and
change. London: Ward Lock Education, 1975.
Sabar, N. & Shafriri, N., Teachers' as curriculum developers:
A Model for In-Service training of teachers in Israel.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1980, 12 (3), 207-217.
Sabar, N., Silberstein, M., Shafriri, N., Needed: Curriculum
Coordinators for teams of teachers as developers of learn-
ing materials. Paper presented to the Israel Educational
Research Association, Ramat Gan, February, 1 9 8 1 .
Schwab, J.J., The practical: A language for curriculum.
School Review, 1969, 78 (1), 1-24.
Schwab, J.J., The practical arts of eclectic. School Review,
1971, 79 (4), 493-542.
Schwab, J.J., The practical 3: Translation into curriculum.
School Review, 1973, 81 (4), 501-522.
Shulman, L.S., Research on teaching: The missing link in
curriculum implementation. In Tamir, P. et al (eds.),
Curriculum Implementation and its Relationship to
Curriculum Development in Science. Israel Science Teach-
ing Centre, Jerusalem, 1979.
Silberstein, M., The new curricula and autonomous teachers.
Metodica, 1973, 1 , 41-52. (Hebrew).
Silberstein, M., Does curriculum implementation constitute
part of its development? In Tamir, P. et al (eds.), Curri-
culum Implementation and its Relationship to Curriculum
Development in Science. Israel Science Teaching Centre,
Jerusalem, 1979.
Silberstein, M., Segal, H. & Nahman, B., Collaboration of
teachers and curriculum consultants in the development
of study material of a local nature. In Tamir, P. et al
(eds.), Curriculum Implementation and its Relationship to
Curriculum Development in Science. Israel Science Teach-
ing Centre, Jerusalem, 1979.
Stabler, D.E., Teachers' centres: A comparative view. Paper
given at the annual conference of Comparative and Inter-
national Education, Society of Canada, Edmonton,
Alberta, June 1975.
Taba, H., Curriculum Development, New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, 1962.
Taylor, P.H., How teachers plan their courses: Studies in
curriculum. London: NFER, 1970.
Thornbury, R. (ed.), Teachers' centre. New York: Apathon
Press, 1973.
Tyler, R.W., Basic principles of curriculum and instructions.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1950.
Tyler, R.W., Specific approaches to curriculum development.
In J. Schaffarzick and D.H. Hampson (eds.), Strategies for
curriculum development. Berkeley: Mo. Cutton Pub.
Corp., 1975, 17-33.
Walker, D.F., A naturalistic model for curriculum develop-
ment. School Review, 1 9 7 1 , 7 9 (1), 51-65.
Walker, D.F., Curriculum development in an art project. In
W.A. Reid and D.F. Walker (eds.), Case studies in curri-
culum change: Great Britain and the United States.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975, 54-91.
Zahorik, J.A., Teachers' planning models. Educational Leader-
ship, 1975, 33 (2), 134-139.
Zoller, U., Implementation of curricula for the 'curriculum-
proof teacher' type curricula: The realism of constraints.
Science Education, 1977, 6 1 (2), 129-134.
27