Strength and Weaknesses of Models

  S   L   E   S   D  E   S   E   O   N   M   K    A   `  S   E   W  A  B  A   D    T   N   P   A   D   O   N   S   R   A   A   H   A    T   S   M   `   G   R   L  A   N   E   E   A   L   R   M    Y    T    T   S   F   A  N   J  A   O  I  N   T

INTRODUCTION •

Tyler’s Model has been benefcial to many curriculum developers that many have ollowed his model (Marsh, 2007)

STRENGTHS •

!rovide curriculum developer with a clear direction or the development process

•

•

!rovide a lo"ical se#uence o curriculum element $t is simple which is easy to ollow %owever, some ar"ued that its simplicity is also a limitation and that is why other curricularists develop their own models (Marsh, 2007)

WEAKNESSES •

•

Tyler tal&s o 'an acceptable educational philosophy, which acts as a screen in the selection o obectives %owever, he does not elaborate on the criteria o this screen (*liebard, +-) %lebowitsh (+-) critici.es that Tyler/s Model tends to triviali.e the curriculum to the easily measurable, that is

•

ome fnd the selection o obectives rom the three possible sources ambi"uous and considered it as a wea&ness but others fnd it to be stren"th o the model as well (Marsh, 2007)

INTRODUCTION •

The Taba Model is somewhat an improvement o the Tyler Model

STRENGTHS •

  $t answers the #uestion o ambi"uity in selectin" the obectives in the Tyler’s model by dia"nosin" the needs o the learners frst 1lthou"h, this is deemed as a limitation by others ome ar"ued that the society and the subect matter should be dia"nosed as well (liva, +2)

•

1s oppose to Tyler’s Model, the content is not the main source o obectives but rather it comes in only ater the obectives have been ormulated

•

  Taba also emphasi.es the need to or"ani.e the content and the learnin" e3periences

WEAKNESSES •

•

Taba’s inductive model may not appeal to curriculum developers who preer to consider the more "lobal aspects o the curriculum beore proceedin" to specifcs (livia, 2004) ther planners may preer to ollow a deductive approach, startin" with the "eneral5 specifcation o philosophy, aims, and "oals5and movin" to the specifcs5 obectives, instructional techni#ues, and

CONCLUSION •

$n "eneral, the stren"th or the wea&ness o the model is arbitrary dependin" on the point o view o the curriculum developer (Marsh, 2007)

   L   E   D   D   O   N   M   R   A   I   Z   R   S   D   E   T  H   E  S   W  A   L   E   G   S  S   M  A  D   E   N   N  E   A  H   H   E   W   T  R   K    J  W  A   S   E  A   N  A   W   I  R  U  N   A   H   K 

STRENGTHS •

•

•

•

6yclical model which provide lo"ical conse#uences valuation should be in every step beore move to the ne3t steps 8oes not have terminal, evaluation "ives eedbac& %as baseline data or obectives (need to be achieved)

91ble to cope with chan"in" circumstances 9provide :e3ibility and relevant to school situation ; suitable or curriculum development by the teachers

WEAKNESSES •

•

$t ta&es time to underta&e an e