E S L

S S E
E D
N M O
K
E A A` S
W B
D TA
AN D O P
S A NAR
T H S A
G ` M

E N ER A L A
R Y L M
ST F T N J A
O N TA
I
INTRODUCTION

• Tyler’s Model has been

beneficial to many
curriculum developers that
many have followed his
model (Marsh, 2007).
STRENGTHS

• Provide curriculum developer

with a clear direction for the
development process.
• Provide a logical sequence of
curriculum element.
• It is simple which is easy to
follow. However, some argued
that its simplicity is also a
limitation and that is why
other curricularists develop
their own models (Marsh,
2007).
WEAKNESSES

• Tyler talks of “an acceptable

educational philosophy”,
which acts as a screen in the
selection of objectives.
However, he does not
elaborate on the criteria of
this screen (Kliebard, 1995).
• Hlebowitsh (1995) criticizes
that Tyler`s Model tends to
trivialize the curriculum to
the easily measurable, that is
• Some find the selection of
objectives from the three
possible sources ambiguous
and considered it as a
weakness but others find it to
be strength of the model as
well (Marsh, 2007).
INTRODUCTION

• The Taba Model is somewhat

an improvement of the Tyler
Model.
STRENGTHS

• It answers the question of

ambiguity in selecting the
objectives in the Tyler’s
model by diagnosing the
needs of the learners first.
Although, this is deemed as a
limitation by others. Some
argued that the society and
the subject matter should be
diagnosed as well (Oliva,
1992).
• As oppose to Tyler’s Model,
the content is not the main
source of objectives but
rather it comes in only after
the objectives have been
formulated.
• Taba also emphasizes the
need to organize the content
and the learning experiences.
WEAKNESSES
• Taba’s inductive model may not
appeal to curriculum developers
who prefer to consider the more
global aspects of the curriculum
before proceeding to specifics.
(Olivia, 2004).
• Other planners may prefer to
follow a deductive approach,
starting with the general—
specification of philosophy, aims,
and goals—and moving to the
specifics— objectives,
instructional techniques, and
CONCLUSION

• In general, the strength or

the weakness of the model is
arbitrary depending on the
point of view of the
curriculum developer (Marsh,
2007).
 -
E L
D D
O N
M A IR
R
E H ES S D
Z

E L T S W
A

E G
H EN ES
D
A
M

W TR KN
H
A
A
S E A N
A
JW

W R
U
N
I
A
H
K
 STRENGTHS
• Cyclical model which provide logical
consequences.
• Evaluation should be in every step
before move to the next steps.
• Does not have terminal, evaluation
gives feedback.
• Has baseline data for objectives (need
to be achieved)
*Able to cope with changing
circumstances.
*provide flexibility and relevant to
school situation & suitable for
curriculum development by the
teachers.
 WEAKNESSES
• It takes time to undertake an
effective situational analysis.
• Not very different from Tyler
Models since it adopts logical
consequences.
 KERR’S
MODEL OF
CURRICULU
M
FA E E Z A
 STRENGTHS

• The domains are interrelated directly

or indirectly so the implementer can
begin with any of the elements.

• The model allows curriculum

implementer to change the order of
planning (to move to and fro amongst
the curriculum elements).

• It offers flexibility.
 STRENGTHS

• The experiences are evaluated

through tests, interviews,
assessments, and other reasonable
methods.

• The evaluation is the collection of

information for use in making
decision about the curriculum
(feedback).
 WEAKNESSES

• Designed not by the teachers who

know more about the pupils.

• The model offers so little directions.

• The curriculum implementers need

a lot of time to determine the
beginning stage in curriculum
development.
 E L
D
O
M E

A L
IN

IV
O
R
A
L C

O
E
T H
 STRENGTHS

• a simple, comprehensive and systematic

model

• offers a process for the complete

development of a school’s curriculum

• Combines a scheme for curriculum

development and a design for instruction
• Recognised the needs of students
in a particular communities

• answers the limitation of the Taba

model in terms of diagnosing only
the need of the student before
formulating the objectives.
WEAKNESSES