THE ROLE OF TYLER MODEL AND WALKER MODEL IN CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

A model is a simplified yet communicable representation of a real-world setting or

situation. According to Print (1989) a model is a simplified representation of
reality which is often depicted in diagrammatic form. While Finch and Crunkilton
(1993) hold that, the basic concern about a model depend on how well the model
communicates what is happening in the real world. Print (1989) explains how this
communication takes place when he says that the purpose of a model is to provide
a structure for examining the variables that constitute reality as well as their
interrelationships.
Curriculum theorists frequently use graphical models as they enable curriculum
developers to visualize curriculum elements, their relationships, and the process of
development and implementation. This work there attempt to discuss the role of
taller and walker model in curriculum development, to enable me discuss the role
of this two models in curriculum development according to print (1989)
Classification of curriculum models
CLASSIFICATION OF CURRICULUM MODELS
The classification of Print (1989) and Brady (1990) is adopted because they group
the various models along a continuum, making it easier to compare the various
models. Print (1989:) sees the Continuum of curriculum models depicting two
extremes of the curriculum process as seen in as shown in table 1 above.
TABLE (1)
A CONTINUUM OF CURRICULUM MODELS

Rational Objectives models Cyclical Models dynamic/ interactive models

Tyler model wheeler model walker model

Taba model Necholls model Skilber Model

On one extreme are the rational or objectives models that are sequential, rather
rigid approaches
to viewing the curriculum process which the Tyler Model fall under while at the
other extreme may be found dynamic or interaction models which the Walker
Model fall under, which view curriculum processes as flexible, interactive and
modifiable.
Before we discuss the role of these models in curriculum development let us first
look at their characteristics as shown in the table above
Table 2
THE CHARACTERISTICS OBJECTIVES AND INTERACTION MODEL

OBJECTIVES MODEL INTERACTION MODEL

Sequence Free

Beginning with Objectives It begins with any element

Movement among the elements during development is Movement among the elements during
Limited development is Unlimited

GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE RATIONAL MODELS OF

CURRICULUM
The rational model of curriculum development is called by a number of names
which include:
the objectives model, the classical model, the means-end model, the scientific
model, the logical model and the sequential model. All the names for this model
are descriptive of the model. The rational models are logical and sequential. They
emphasize the fixed sequence of curriculum elements, beginning with objectives
and following a sequential pattern from objectives to content, method and finally
evaluation (Print 1989).
Brady (1990) states that supporters of the rational model argue that the first step of
stating objectives is the most critical, because the other steps follow from, and are
determined by, the first step. Only when the objectives are determined can content
be selected and organised. The process of evaluation is the process of determining
to what extent the objectives are achieved through the selected content and method.
The chief proponents of the rational model are Ralph Tyler and Hilda Taba (Print
1989 ).
THE ROLE OF TYLER'S (RATIONAL) MODEL OF CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT

Tyler argued that curriculum development needed to be treated logically and

systematically (Print 1989). Tyler sought to instil in developers of curricula a more
logical, systematic, meaningful approach to their task The following s role of the
Tyler (Rational) model have been identified in curriculum development

1. Print (1989) states: "The very nature of the rational model- its logical, sequential
structure provides it with a useful base for planning and devising curricula. In
support of this assertion, Brady (1990) quotes Kliebard (1970) who claims, "One
reason for the success of the Tyler rationale is its very rationality. It is an
eminently reasonable framework for developing a curriculum. In one sense, the
Tyler rationale is imperishable".
2. According to Print (1989) by emphasizing the role and value of objectives, this
model forces curriculum developers to think seriously about their task. As Taba
(1962) puts it, "Formulation of clear and comprehensive objectives provides an
essential platform for the curriculum". Proponents of the rational 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.
Brady (1990: 61) concurs with Print on this strength of the rational model when he
says: "By making objectives the essential first step, the model provides the
developer with a clear direction and a guide for the remainder of the process".
THE WEAKNESS OF TYLER'S (RATIONAL) MODEL OF
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
The following weaknesses of the rational model have been identified by a number
of researchers and curriculum developers:
1. The objectives model has flaws in terms of the reality of curriculum
development
which is rarely a fixed or linear process.
2. Another weakness of the rationale model is that it overlooks the unpredictable
nature of teaching and learning. While the model prescribes specific objectives to
be achieved, learning occurs beyond these objectives due to factors that could not
be foreseen (Print 1989). The model cannot account for the many complex
outcomes of learning (Brady 1990).
3. The other criticism that has been cited is that educational objectives need not
precede the selection and organization of learning experiences ( Brady 1990)
4. Lastly, the exponents of the rational model, especially Tyler, have been
criticized for not adequately explaining the sources of their objectives (Print 1989)
THE WALKER DYNAMIC OR INTERACTIONAL MODELS OF
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
The basic tenet of the dynamic or interactional models of curriculum development
is that curriculum development is a dynamic and interactive process which can
begin with any curriculum element (Print 1989, Brady 1990).
The proponents of this approach to curriculum development argue that the
curriculum process does not follow a lineal, sequential pattern. Dynamic models
have emerged from a more descriptive approach to curriculum where researchers
have observed the behavior of teachers and developers as they devise curricula.
Consequently the analytical and prescriptive approach, the very basis of the
objectives and cyclical models, is not prominent in the dynamic models.
According to Print (1989) the major proponents of the dynamic or interaction
model are
Walker (1971) and Malcolm (1976). Decker Walker argued that the objectives or
rational models of curricuhun development were neither popular nor successful.
Walker contended that curriculum developers do not follow the prescriptive
approach of the rational sequence of curriculum elements when they devise
curriculum but proceed through three phrases in their natural preparation of
curricula. Walker's model of curriculum development is shown bellow

STAGES OF WALKER'S MODEL OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Face (1): (beliefs theories conceptions points of view, aims, objectives)

Face (2): deliberations (applying them to practical situations, arguing about
accepting, refusing, changing, and adapting)

Face (3): Curriculum Design (Making decisions about the various process
components)

The three phases of Walker's model are the platform phase, the deliberation phase
and the design phase. In the platform phase, platform statements made up of
ideas, preferences, points of view, beliefs and values that are held by curriculum
developers are recognized.
When the curriculum developers start discussing on the basis of the recognized
platform statements, this is the second stage of deliberation, which is a complex,
randomized set of interactions that eventually achieves an enormous amount of
background work before the actual curriculum is designed (Print 1989 ). In the
final phase which Walker calls the design stage, curriculum developers make
decisions about the various components or elements of the curriculum.

THE ROLE OF WALKER'S (INTERACTIVE) MODEL OF CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT
The strengths of the dynamic or interactional models include the following:
1. It is claimed by the proponents of these models that they are the realistic way of
handling curriculum development.
2. By avoiding the obsession with writing objectives, and indeed behavioral
objectives at that, developers are free to be more creative (Print 1989). The model
allows the developer to change the order of planning, to move to and fro among the
curriculum elements (Brady 1990).
3. Another strength of the model is its flexibility when the development task is
approached. The flexibility arises from the suggestion that developers may begin at
any point in the curriculum process that is appropriate to their needs (Print 1989).

The weaknesses
The weaknesses of the dynamic models of curriculum development include the
following:
• The dynamic models appear confusing and lacking in direction. Brady (1990)
states, "The model is not systematic in the way the objective model is. It has no on
fixed direction or sequence. Critics feel that changing direction at will during the
process of curriculum development may be reflected in a piecemeal finished
product". In this vein, Print (1989) contends that "some dynamic models offer so
little direction that developers are left perplexed as to what to do".
• The downplaying of objectives in the dynamic model has been seen as its other
weakness. According to Print (1989) a question that is often asked by opponents
of the interaction models is - How do you know where you are 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. Brady (1990) points out that
the possible danger of not stating objectives first is that they may simply be
accommodated to the content specification, and thereby be decorative, or contrived
as an afterthought .
Brady, L. 1990. Curriculum Development. New York: Prentice Hall.

Cruskiton T.( 1990). Education: An Analysis of Issues and

Programs. New York: Teachers' College Press.

Kliebad H . (1970). Encouraging Reflective Practice. Education:

An Analysis of Issues and Programs. New York: Teachers' College Press.

Malcolm J. (1984). Government Policy on Education with Production. The Report on the First
National Workshop on Education with Production, . Harare: Ministry
Of Education, ZIMFEP .

Print , M. (1989). The Development of a Teaching Practice Curriculum: A Tertiary -

Didactic Investigation. Westville: University of Durban.