An overview of selected curriculum models and prevalent learning taxonomies

1. CURRICULUM MODELS AND
TAXONOMIES OF LEARNING
Mark Davies

2. What is a Curriculum?
“A schema that sets forth who will be taught, what will be taught, and how this will take
place – providing a justification for the pedagogical strategy employed.”
“The curriculum may also make reference to the intrinsic qualities of the ‘learner’, the
relationship between learner and teacher, or indeed nature of epistemology itself.”

3. Curriculum Models – Considerations…
Informed by one’s ontological and epistemological position
■ What constitutes legitimate knowledge?
■ Who decides this?
■ How should this be made accessible to students?
■ Where is the focus:
– The process of learning?
– The product of the learning experience?
■ How is the learner viewed:
– Active agent?
– Passive recipient?
■ In what way is the learning organised into a coherent sequence?

4. Curriculum Model Classification (Kelly, 2009)
Content &
Product
Process &
Development
Positivist Interpretivist

5. Curriculum Model Classification (Marsh, 2009)
Procedural
Conceptual Critical
Descriptive

6. Procedural
■ Tyler’s (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum Design
– Purpose?
– Content?
– Procedure?
– Evaluation?
■ ‘Intended LearningObjectives’
■ Learning viewed as a linear process
Procedural

7. Descriptive/Naturalistic
■ Based upon the work ofWalker (1971)
■ Contends that more effective curricula are created when stakeholders are fully
engaged in the development process
■ Three phases:
– Platform (beliefs, concepts, theories, aims & objectives)
– Deliberation (how these are practically applied)
– Curriculum Design (operationalisation)
Descriptive

8. Conceptual
■ Less focus upon planning and operationalisation
■ ‘Deeper’ issues explored:
– Approaches to Learning (Marton & Saljo, 1976)
– Schema Construction (Piaget, 1954)
– Domains of Intelligence (Gardner, 1983)
Conceptual

9. Critical
■ Grounded within postmodernism and critical social theory
■ Learning as inculcation
■ Curricula as a perpetuator of the dominant discourse:
– Reinforcement of political and social structures
– Educational as cultural transmission
■ Critical curricula may may catalyze ‘consciousness awakening’
– Viz. Friere’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Critical

10. EducationalTaxonomies
■ Explicate the behaviours and characteristics that we wish the learner to develop
■ They may :
– Clearly demarcate stages of learner development
– Utilise hierarchies of performance
– Be domain specific
■ Examples:
– Bloom’sTaxonomy… (Bloom et al, 1956)
– The SOLOTaxonomy (Biggs &Tang, 2011)
– Fink’s (2003) Taxonomy of Significant Learning

11. Curriculum Design –Tyler’s (1949)
Learning Outcomes Based Approaches
Identify Aims & Objectives
Selecting Learning Experiences
Organising Learning Experiences
Evaluation
What Behaviours
Will the Learners
Demonstrate?
(Taxonomy)

12. Bloom’sTaxonomy
■ Three domains:
– Cognitive
– Psychomotor
– Affective
■ Hierarchical level of application:
– I-VI
■ Classically used in conjunction with Behavioural Learning Objectives (Mager, 1962)
– Verb / Condition / Standard

13. Biggs’ (1989) 3P Model
Presage Process Product
Student Factors
• Knowledge & Ability
• Motivation
Teaching Context
• Climate/ethos
Learning Activities
• Clear ILOs
• Appropriate Level
• High Quality
Teaching
Outcome
• Congruence with
previous elements

14. Structure of the Observed
Learning Outcome
■ Much commonality with Bloom’s
approach
■ Used in conjunction with ‘3P Model’
■ Hierarchical – 5 levels
■ Constructive Alignment must be
maintained between:
– Intended LearningOutcomes
– Teaching & LearningActivities
– Assessment Strategies

15. SOLOTaxonomy with SampleVerbs

16. Fink’s (2003)Taxonomy of Significant
Learning
■ Development motivated by a belief
that conventional taxonomies focus
within the cognitive domain:
– Affective and metacognitive
elements more strongly
acknowledged
■ Six forms of significant learning
■ Clear alignment between learning
goals and assessment strategy

17. Fink’s (2003)Taxonomy of Significant
Learning
■ Non-hierarchical:
– The taxonomy may be
considered relational or
interactive
■ A minimum of one learning objective
for each form of learning
■ ‘Rich Learning Experiences’
– A number of the forms
simultaneously engaged

18. In a Nutshell
■ Curriculum models facilitate the
structuring of planned learning
activities
■ EducationalTaxonomies allow the
facilitator of learning to articulate the
characteristics – behaviours –
knowledge – attitudes that [we wish
them to develop]
■ These frameworks function as a guide
for developing a range of student
experiences – they are not a
prescription
■ Be aware of the tacit power that they
exert upon the overall learning
experience

19. Further Reading
Biggs, J. B. (1989) Approaches to the Enhancement ofTertiaryTeaching. Higher Education Research
and Development 8, 7-25.
Biggs, J. B.Tang, C. (2011)Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Bloom, B. S. Englehart, M. D. Furst, E. J. Hill,W. H. Krathwohl, D. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives:The Classification of Educational Goals - Handbook I Cognitive Domain. NewYork: David
McKay.
Fink, L. D. (2003) Creating Significant Learning Experiences:An Integrated Approach to Designing
College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Friere, P (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind:TheTheory of Multiple Intelligences. NewYork: Basic Books
Kelly,A.V. (2009)The Curriculum:Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

20. Further Reading
Mager, R. F. (1962) Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto: Fearon Books.
Marsh, C. J. (2009) Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. London: Routledge.
Marton, F. Saljo, R. (1976) On Qualitative Differences in Learning I: Outcome as a Function of the
Learner's Conception of theTask. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46:2, 115-127.
Piaget, J. (1954)The Construction of Reality in the Child. NewYork: Basic Books.
Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Walker, D. (1971) A Naturalistic Model for Curriculum Development. School Review 80:1, 51-65