UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION WINNEBA FACULTY OF EDUCATION STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS MCP 821: THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF CURRICULUM AND DIGITAL PEDAGOGIES TERM PAPER: ASSIGNED MODEL OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT DOMINIC NYAME – 202114658 SEYRAM SETORDZI – 202146507 JULY, 26, 2021. 1 Nyame & Setordzi. “. . . there is always a need for newly formulated curriculum models that address contemporary circumstance and valued educational aspirations.” –Edmond Short John Fairhurst Kerr was an educator. In 1972, he wrote the book, Changing the Curriculum. In this book, he elucidated his curriculum model and defined curriculum according to his own experiences, perspective, and insight. “All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school”. (Kerr, 1972). Marsh (2007) believes that Tyler’s model has been beneficial to many curriculum developers as they have followed it. Tyler who is iconized as the father of evaluation was also a pioneer in developing a curriculum model. According to (Dillard, 1978), a model is a mental image to express ideas more easily. (Marshall, 2006), postulates that a model is an abstract concept to aid conceptualization & explanations. Kerr in his proposed design believes that an initial attempt should be made at a synthesis of a model in brief outline dealing with objectives, knowledge, learning experiences, and evaluation. This is then followed by a consideration of the implications of the model for educational practice. Kerr, therefore, went beyond the basic model to develop a more complicated model in specific operational terms. Kerr divided the domain of curriculum into four areas: objectives, knowledge, school learning experiences and evaluation. A simplified version of Kerr’s model of curriculum design is shown below. 2 Nyame & Setordzi. OBJECTIVES KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SCHOOL LEARNING EXPERIENCES The objectives are singled out as very important and should logically be the starting point of the model because it is possible to start an analysis at any point. Kerr (1971) added that we cannot and should not decide ‘what’, or ‘how’ to reach any situation until we know ‘why’ we are doing it as objectives delineate learning outcomes Like Tyler, John Kerr also indicated the objectives and understood them as changes in pupil behavior. He also specified the learner, society, and disciplines as the source of objectives. This embraces the pupil’s need and interest, the societal aspirations, and conditions as well as the nature of the subject matter and the views of subject specialists. His inclusion of disciplines as a source of objective statement spring from his ideology of knowledge as the organization of disciplines just as the scholar academy ideology emphasizes. 3 Nyame & Setordzi. Kerr classified the objectives into three groups: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. Stating that the objective statement should holistically spotlight the three domains of development and not pivoting on a single domain. J. F. Kerr places evaluation immediately after Objectives. This idea was to prominently assess and make decisions about the curriculum. There are aims, goals, and objectives. He believes that the objectives should be evaluated to ensure it always synchronizes with the overall aims. If the objectives are weighed out against the aims and display conflict or disequilibrium, opportunity is created for modification. Thus, evaluating on the premise of aims and not on learner outcome after experiencing knowledge. Some samples for evaluating are; interviews, tests (objective-type and essay-type), survey techniques, attitude scales, interest inventories among other reasonable methods. The third component of his model indicates knowledge. Kerr’s authority suggests the organization, integration, sequencing and reiterating or reinforcing knowledge. (Urevbu, 1985). Organizing is crucial for learning to avoid chaos. This can be maximized when the disciplines are planned and arranged in appropriate order. For instance, in a literacy class, beginning learners are taken through the letters of the alphabets and its sounds before forming words or reading and not vice versa. When concepts in the various disciplines are in order, simple to complex, it helps learners gain thorough comprehension which also aids in retention. Kerr also beams integration of all the disciplines of knowledge. In the world, people are not faced with challenges that focus on a particular discipline (Numeracy or Geography and others). Therefore, it is essential to focus on themes and weave all the other disciplines into it. Illustrating in a Numeracy class, learners can have word problems to read (literacy), draw (Creative Arts) the items identified in the problem, if the items are orange (Science-importance of fruits can be indicated), the creator of the first orange 4 Nyame & Setordzi. plant (R.M.E) among others. Enhancing the rounded or holistic development of the learner in all the disciplines of knowledge. The last component of the model spotlights School learning experiences is influenced by societal opportunities, the school community, pupil and teacher relationships, individual differences, teaching methods, content and the maturity of the learners. These experiences are evaluated through tests, interviews, assessment and other methods. It should be noted that the later models were developed either to supplement, complement or correct Tyler’s model. What is, however, common and important about both Tyler’s model and the later models is that they have moved away from the very rudimental and narrow concept of the school curriculum based purely on the content. They look at the curriculum more broadly in considering subject matter, the learner, the learning process and learning conditions. The models are mainly concerned with the change of behaviour in the learner, the methods of learning such as the Project work method, the Inquiry method and the Discovery method. They have been criticized for paying very little attention to the content of what is to be learnt. Above all they are considered still simplistic in nature and fail to provide explicit criteria for various curriculum processes. Curriculum scholars therefore, continue to develop more sophisticated and guiding models for curriculum planning. Strengths of Kerr’s Model • Interrelatedness - The four phases identified in the model are interrelated directly or indirectly. Objectives are derived from school learning experiences, evaluation and 5 Nyame & Setordzi. knowledge. Although objectives form the logical starting point in the process, in practice, one could break into the cycle of interrelated parts at any point. • Kerr also indicates insight into reliable factors and sources of data for the four important components of the curriculum. Explicitly guiding a developer into situations to tap exemplars from in developing a curriculum. • Everything influences everything thus start analysis at any point. (Urevbu, 1985). The arrows display how analysis can start at any point in the design. Weaknesses of Kerr’s Model of Curriculum Development. • A lot more was expected of Kerr’s model with Tyler’s serving an essential exemplar but he intended it as a model (mental image as Dillard, Goldberg and Marshall has elucidated in the opening paragraphs), nothing more, nothing less. • Diagrammatic – some analyst believe that Kerr was fixated on the diagrams since the model is not practical. Though it is interrelated, they believe it cannot be done realistically in any learning environment. Instructors or teachers would not break into the cycle at any point when there’s an imbalance. • The external influences, and philosophical considerations of the curriculum is not captured. Educators believe that these factors immensely influence the curriculum but Kerr’s exclusion posits a world without differences or challenges; one with similar and excellent circumstances across race and cultures. • Kerr did not identify the role of research activity in objective formulation. He also neglected the teacher role in evaluating since this component was to assess the objectives 6 Nyame & Setordzi. in line with the aims and not learner outcome. Evaluating objectives and teachers’ role in evaluating. • He also designed the various components separately before fitting in. If the components were designed simultaneously, it is believed he would not have come to his proposed model. Eminah (2010) revised Kerr’s model and designed the model below. Prominently indicating external constraints as a factor that influences curriculum and goals instead of objectives to weave goals and objectives in the same nest. External constraints Goals Knowledge Evaluation Learning experiences 7 Nyame & Setordzi. References Dillard, C. R. & Goldberg, D. E. (1978). Chemistry: Reactions, structure and properties. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company Inc. Eminah, J. K., (2010). Revision of Kerr’s Model of the Curriculum for a More Effective and Dynamic Science Education. Department of Education. Umaru Musa Yar ‘Adua University, Katsina. Journal of Education and Policy Review. Vol 2. Kerr J.F. (1972). The Problem of curriculum reform. In J.F. Kerr (Ed.) Changing the curriculum (pp13-38). London: University of London Press. Marshall, G. (Ed.) (2006). Oxford dictionary of sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Short, E. C., (1978). "Review of Curriculum Theory, edited by Alex Molnar and John A. Zahorik," Texas Tech Journal of Education, 5(No. 3) 227-131.
