STRENGTH

S AND WEAKNESSES

OF TYLE

R`S AND TABA`S MODEL

I NT A N J A

M A L A MA A R O P

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 addressing lower order behaviors rather than higher order thinking.

• 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 evaluation (Olivia, 2004).

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).

WHEELER MODEL -

STRENGTH

S AND

WEAKNESSES

K H A I R

U N NA J W

A AH M A D W

A D Z I R

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

MF A 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.

THE O

LIVA M

ODEL

C A R O L I NE

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