Designing the Classroom Curriculum Designing the Classroom Curriculum | Page 35

Lynch, Smith, Howarth
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?
These questions can be simplified to a logical sequence of: state the objectives; select the learning
experiences; organise the learning experiences and evaluate the learning. Figure 3.1 illustrates the model
(Brady and Kennedy, 2010, p. 121).
In this rational planning model, the “teacher designs the course, defines the requirements, assigns projects
and the learning materials” (Nasseh, 1996, p. 1). This model lends itself to the mastery of a body of
knowledge, attitudes, skills, performances or whatever a teacher or a school or higher education course
requires.
Figure 3.1: Objectives Model
According to Brady and Kennedy (2010), one of the strengths of this model is that it is logical in nature:
teachers can understand it and easily appreciate how curriculum is developed. Supporters of the model argue
however that this type of approach to curriculum development depends on the clarity of the stated
objectives. Its simplicity therefore makes it appropriate for education areas, such as developing countries,
where formal teacher training is often absent.
Its suggested weakness is the linear structure. Critics argue that learning is multi-facetted and a linear
curriculum model is inappropriate. In addition, it fails to accommodate the contingent nature of teaching in
classrooms by ignoring, the critics say, a direct feedback loop between teaching plans, the emergent issues
and problems that litter the process of teaching. Further, critics believe that the model tends to encourage
didactic teaching in students who, more often than not, have a passive role, because the teacher is focused
on the objectives (Nasseh, 1996).
Notice that in these criticisms, there is a language slide from the structure of curriculum planning to an assumed
‘teaching’ situation so that one becomes a proxy for the other. This slide is unwarranted and unhelpful because
it confuses two different analytic domains. “Curriculum” is not “teaching” and there is nothing in Figure 3.1
that in any way interferes with pedagogical practice because the model does not purport to deal with teaching.
It deals with the structure of curriculum. What is missing is an instructional design component, despite the
heading “Organise the Learning Experiences”. The capacity to ‘teach’ is taken for granted.
35