Exploring Technical and Non-Technical Curriculum Models

Curriculum planning is the backbone of effective education, guiding what students learn and how they learn it. When it comes to developing curricula, educators have traditionally turned to two broad approaches: technical models that emphasize structure and measurable outcomes, and non-technical models that prioritize learner autonomy and social contexts. Understanding these different frameworks helps educators choose the most appropriate approach for their specific educational goals and student populations.

Technical curriculum models: structured pathways to learning 🔗

Technical models follow a systematic, linear approach to curriculum development. These models are considered logical, efficient, and effective in delivering education, focusing on predetermined objectives and measurable outcomes. Let’s examine four influential technical models that have shaped curriculum planning.

Tyler’s model: the foundation of objective-based planning 🔗

Ralph Tyler’s curriculum model, published in 1949, set a benchmark in education by providing clear direction through four fundamental questions: What educational purposes should be achieved? What learning experiences can help achieve these purposes? How should these experiences be organized? How can we determine whether purposes are being attained?

This model moves from general to specific in a linear fashion. Tyler focused on the nature and structure of knowledge, societal needs, and learner needs, making his model society-centered. The model’s strength lies in its simplicity and clarity, allowing educators to carefully manage objectives and monitor outcomes. However, critics point out that it can be overly rigid and doesn’t accommodate unexpected changes or individual student characteristics well.

Taba’s model: grassroots approach to curriculum building 🔗

Hilda Taba refined Tyler’s work in 1962 with a crucial difference: she emphasized teacher involvement throughout the curriculum development process. Unlike Tyler who started from the top, Taba advocated for a grassroots approach that begins with identifying learner needs and ends with evaluation.

Taba’s seven-step model includes diagnosing needs, formulating objectives, selecting content, organizing content, selecting learning experiences, organizing learning activities, and evaluation. The inductive approach she championed means starting with specifics and building toward general design, rather than working from predetermined objectives downward. This model incorporates continuous feedback, allowing for adjustments based on how well the curriculum is working in practice.

Saylor’s model: systems approach to curriculum design 🔗

Ralph Saylor, along with William Alexander and Arthur Lewis, developed a model emphasizing a systems approach. This framework views curriculum development as cyclical, where objectives, content, organization, and assessment are all interrelated. The model stresses aligning instructional objectives with learning experiences and evaluation methods, ensuring all curriculum elements work together cohesively to achieve educational goals.

Hunkins’ model: decision-making and flexibility 🔗

James Hunkins extended earlier technical models by incorporating greater flexibility and emphasizing decision-making processes. His approach includes seven stages: conceptualization, diagnosis, content selection, experience selection, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance. A unique feature is the feedback loop that allows adjustments between stages based on context. Hunkins’ model recognizes that curriculum planning requires ongoing evaluation and continuous refinement to remain relevant to educational and social needs.

Non-technical curriculum models: learner-centered approaches 🔗

Non-technical models are described as subjective, personal, and aesthetic, focusing on the learner rather than predetermined content. These approaches emphasize student autonomy, creativity, and the integration of social factors into learning.

The open classroom model: freedom and exploration 🔗

The open classroom movement originated in British elementary schools after World War II and gained momentum in the United States during the late 1960s. This model centers on creating flexible, student-centered learning environments where learners have freedom to explore topics of interest, work at their own pace, and participate in decisions about their learning.

Open classrooms contained no whole-class lessons, no standardized tests, and no detailed curriculum. Instead, teachers structured the classroom with interest centers for reading, math, science, and art, acting as facilitators rather than traditional instructors. Students moved between centers based on their interests, learning through active engagement rather than passive reception.

This approach promotes high learner autonomy and fosters creativity, critical thinking, and self-directed learning. Students collaborate with peers, and social learning becomes integral to the educational experience. However, the lack of clear structure can sometimes lead to confusion, and measuring outcomes becomes more challenging since the focus is on learning processes rather than quantifiable results.

The Weinstein-Fantini model: curriculum as social context 🔗

The Weinstein-Fantini model, also known as the Humanistic Model, links socio-psychological factors with cognition and addresses group learning rather than just individual needs. This model places significant emphasis on social factors including culture, diversity, and community in curriculum design.

The model argues that curriculum should reflect the social context in which it’s implemented, not merely serve as a set of academic objectives. Content should be organized around learners’ life experiences, attitudes and feelings, and the social context in which they live. Educators are encouraged to design curricula addressing diverse learner needs and incorporating social issues and community engagement.

This approach recognizes that learners come from varied backgrounds and experiences, making the curriculum more inclusive and socially relevant. By focusing on social factors, the Weinstein-Fantini model creates a holistic learning experience connecting education with real-world issues and preparing students for multicultural society.

Comparing technical and non-technical approaches 🔗

Structural differences: Technical models follow clear, sequential steps with predetermined objectives and measurable outcomes. Non-technical models embrace flexibility, allowing curriculum to evolve based on student interests and social contexts.

Teacher and student roles: In technical models, teachers often direct learning and students work toward specific objectives. In non-technical models, teachers act as facilitators and students exercise greater control over their learning journey.

Assessment approaches: Technical models emphasize measurable evaluation of predetermined objectives. Non-technical models focus on process-oriented assessment, valuing creativity, social development, and individual growth that may be harder to quantify.

Strengths and limitations: Technical models provide consistency, clear direction, and ease of replication across different contexts. However, they can be rigid and may not accommodate individual differences or unexpected learning opportunities. Non-technical models foster learner autonomy, creativity, and social relevance, but their flexible nature can lead to lack of clear direction and challenges in assessment.

Finding the right balance 🔗

The choice between technical and non-technical models depends largely on educational goals, student populations, and institutional contexts. Many modern educational institutions blend elements from both approaches. For example, a program might establish clear academic goals using Taba’s structured approach while simultaneously fostering an open classroom environment that gives students freedom to explore topics independently.

Since children differ in their motivations, interests, and backgrounds, there will never be a victory for either traditional or progressive teaching. The most effective curriculum planning recognizes that different situations call for different approaches. Smart educators construct hybrid models reflecting student diversity while maintaining educational rigor.

Distance education particularly benefits from understanding these different models. Technical models help ensure consistent learning outcomes across distributed learners, while non-technical approaches can foster the engagement and self-direction essential for successful online learning. The key is selecting and adapting models that align with specific educational objectives while remaining responsive to learner needs.

What do you think? How might technical and non-technical curriculum models be combined in your educational context? Which elements from each approach would best serve your learners’ needs while maintaining academic standards?

References

1. https://europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com/issues/PDF/EJSS_58_1_02.pdf
2. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1180613.pdf
3. https://www.educationnext.org/theopenclassroom/
4. https://marpasha.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/curriculum-development-models/
5. https://nationalforum.com/Electronic Journal Volumes/Lunenburg, Fred C. Curriculum Development-Inductive Models-Schooling V2 N1 2011.pdf