The purpose of this chapter is to examine how curriculum developers can, and do, devise curricula. It will focus on an analysis of how teachers may develop curricula successfully as well as presenting a synthesis of the literature explaining how teacher currently approach curriculum developers with both a challenge and a useful guide as they tackle the process of curriculum development.

An important reason for examining both of the above tasks is that educators view the process of curriculum development in many diverse ways. Clarity of understanding, let alone consensus, about the curriculum process has been difficult to achieve. Yet a knowledge and understanding of the curriculum process is of a vital importance in the preparation of effective curricula.

To understand the context of the model of curriculum development presented at the end of this chapter, it is necessary to appreciate the range of models employed by curriculum developers. Models may be classified according to a continuum that ranges from rational through cyclical to dynamic approaches of curriculum development. Curriculum writers tend to advocate the use of cyclical or rational models when devising curricula largely because of their explicit structure. Teachers, however, appear to prefer a form of dynamic model, often adapted from a recognized model such as Skilbeck’s.  What research is available (Walker, 1972; Harrison, 1979; Brady, 1981; Cohen and Harrison, 1982) suggests that there are numerous curriculum models adopted by teachers, and that there is ample evidence of confusion about curriculum and its development in schools.

For the reason, this chapter advocates the use of a model that incorporates aspects of all three existing categories of models. The comprehensive model of curriculum development outlined at the end of this chapter is at once logical and sequential in approach, cyclical and its development of a curriculum product and yet concerned with applying the model to realistic situations. It is a model that has the flexibility to be used for developing a systemic, regional, school or subschool curriculum document as well as packages of curriculum materials and curriculum projects. The model is outlined later in this chapter and is fleshed out in subsequent chapters.

There is substantial evidence from the literature, research and by observation to inform us that classroom teachers are not actively engaged in using models in their curriculum development. This is particularly evident at the school level mentioned in the previous chapter (Brady, 1981; Tom; 1977; Cohen and Harrison, 1982; Deschamp, 1983; Print, 1985a, 1986b). Some of the reasons forwarded for This situation are:

1. Lack of teacher understanding of curriculum models and the process of curriculum development.
2. Insufficient Experience, both practically and theoretically, with curriculum models.
3. Inadequate amount of time in which to enquire about and apply curriculum models.
4. Lack of support form colleagues for employing curriculum models.
5. Numerous and frequently conflicting conceptions of the nature of curriculum and curriculum development.
6. A misconception of the terms ‘model’ and ‘algorithm’. Teachers avoid the former but use the latter, often unknowingly.

Regardless of the reasons, and whether educators refer to models theories, paradigms or algorithms, it is essential that curriculum developers bring conceptual consideration to their task. If they are to overcome the weakness inherent in intuitive approaches to curriculum development, some sound theoretical underpinning to the curriculum process is essential.

A model is simplified representation of reality which is often depicted in diagrammatic form. The purpose of a model is to provide a structure for examining the variables that constitute realty as well as their interrelationships. Zais (1976:91) considers models to be ‘. . . miniature representations that summarize data and/or phenomena and thus act as an aid to comprehension’.  Similarly, van Dalen (1973:53) refers to models or paradigms as ‘. . . simplified or familiar structures which are used to gain insights into phenomena that scientists want to explain’. In curriculum development we use models to examine the elements of a curriculum (the variables) and how those elements interrelate. At this point it might be worthwhile consulting the glossary for definitions of ‘curriculum elements’, ‘curriculum development’ and ‘curriculum process’.
A general term gaining greater acceptance as a means of explaining the curriculum process is ‘algorithm’ is a ‘. . . step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end ‘ (Oxford English Dictionary) and may well be a more appropriate term than ‘model’ (simplified representation) or ‘paradigm’ (outstandingly clear or typical example). Certainly there is evidence that teachers conceptualize curricula more in an algorithmic sense than as a model (Deschamp, 1983; Deschamp and Ryan, 1986; Toomey, 1979). Nevertheless, the literature in the area of curriculum development has accepted the use of the term ‘model’ to explain both the nature and process of curriculum development.

Models may be considered in many different ways, depending upon the purpose for which they are intended. For example, models may be physical representations of reality, such as a globe of the world, a cross-section of an orbital engine or a scaled version of a yacht such as Australia II (and its ‘winged’ keel) to be used for water testing. In these cases the physical reality is represented in a simplified replication of the actual object. The variables that constitute that object may then be analyzed and so comprehension of reality is facilitated.

More abstractly, models may be conceptual or verbal in nature. This type of model endeavors to clarify meanings and assist the comprehension of complicated theories and phenomena. Thus model may be seen as a portion of theory and, indeed, one of the main functions of models is to aid in theory-building. Such models are used extensively in the study of curriculum.

 This second type of model frequently employs metaphors in order to enhance comprehension. Thus conceptual models include explanations of the dissemination of innovations (for example the problem solver model which likens the spread and the acceptance of an innovation to the process of problem-solving), and the factory-like nature of schools, where schools are seen as ‘factories’ for the processing of raw materials (students).

Mathematical models reduce complex phenomena in the physical sciences to regular mathematical expressions. Typical of this type are mathematical expressions. Typical of this type are mathematical equations, chemical equations and, probably the most well-known equations in physics, Einstein’s E = MC2. Finally, model may be graphic representations which depict, by drawings or diagrams, the components of the item being examined. Such diagrams also show the relationships between the variables within the model. The models that follow in this chapter, and indeed much of curriculum theory, are depicted in graphical form.
Sometimes the terms ‘models’ and ‘theory’ are used synonymously. More accurately the former must be seen as a portion of a theory, something that aids in explaining complicated theory. Van Dalen makes the point quite emphatically.

Both theories and models are conceptual schemes that explain the relationship of the variables under consideration. But models are analogies (this thing is like that thing) and therefore can tolerate some facts that are not in compatible with the theory invalidate the theory. (Van Dalen, 1973:54)
We have seen that models are useful when developing theories because they can summarize effectively and economically a mass of data and complex phenomena. They achieve this by explaining limited aspects of a total theoretical domain. In other words, they concentrate upon selective variables and how they interrelate within the theory under examination. In curriculum we frequently use graphical models as they enable curriculum developers to visualize curriculum elements, their relationships, and the processes of development and implementation.

Consensus about the relationship between curriculum elements, their order and their exact nature has largely evaded those writing in the field of curriculum. Views of what are the curriculum process is about or, more accurately, what it should be concerned with, abound in the literature. A representative sample of the more significant viewpoints has been included in the form of a continuum of curriculum models.

The continuum depicts two extremes of the curriculum process as seen in figure2.1. The rational or objectives models are sequential, rather rigid approaches to viewing the curriculum process, while at the other example may be found dynamic or interaction models, which view curriculum processes as flexible, interactive and modifiable. In between, models gradually change from one type to the other.

It is possible to distinguish cyclical model are those that are rational in approach, but are becoming increasingly more flexible in applications.  Each of these models will be examined in some detail, with emphasis placed upon particular proponents of models. Figure 2.1 shows the relationship between these models and the names of their developers.