User:AlikerriBev/sandbox

= A comparison and contrast between the technical- scientific approach and nontechnical-nonscientific approach to curriculum development using the Hilda Taba and Decker Walker models in a Caribbean context. =

Hilda Taba


Britannica (2021) states that Hilda Taba was born in Estonia in 1902. She graduated with her bachelor’s degree in 1927 from the university of Tartu in Estonia. She gained her Masters in 1927 from Dryn Mawr college in the USA and then she attained her Doctorate in 1931 from Columbia University also in the USA where William H. Kilpatrick oversaw her work. Hilda Taba became a teacher teaching German at Dalton school in New York. The Dalton school was involved in an eight-year study looking at alternative curricula and new practices in relation to student testing and teacher development. The director of this research was Ralph Tyler who hired Taba as part of his research team. It is from here that Tyler’s work influenced her. Hilda Taba was a curriculum theorist and teacher educator. She died in 1967 (Britannica, 2021).

Decker Walker
According to Stanford Profiles (n.d), Decker Walker is a Professor of Education, Emeritus at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. Prabook (2021) notes that Decker Walker was born in 1942 in the USA. Prabook (2021) further states that Walker is an education educator who gained his Bachelor of Science in Physics at Carnegie-Mellon U in 1963; his Master of Arts in Natural Science at Carnegie-Mellon U in 1966 and Doctor of Philosophy at Stanford University in 1971.

The two approaches to education: The technical-scientific approach and the nontechnical- nonscientific approach
Ornstein and Hunkins (2018) believe that the technical scientific approach to curriculum began around 1900s and it is a modernist approach. This approach uses scientific principles and monitors the components of curriculum design. It focuses on student learning specific subject matter with specific expected outputs. However, the nontechnical- nonscientific approach is a postmodernist approach. The student is the central focus and not specific learning outputs. Ornstein and Hunkins (2018) further explain that in this approach “students are active participants in the learning process” (p. 218). The Taba model is usually categorized under the technical scientific approach because of its characteristics and Decker Walker’s model including deliberation is usually categorized under the non technical- non scientific approach because of its characteristics.

The Hilda Taba model
Hilda Taba’s approach to curriculum design is an inductive approach. Ornstein and Hunkins (2018) pointed out that Taba’s model consist of seven steps. These are

1.     the diagnosis of needs

2.     formulating objectives

3.     selecting content

4.     organizing content

5.     selecting learning experiences

6.     organizing learning experiences

7.     evaluation and means of evaluation.

Taba promotes a top- down model or grassroots approach in her model (Gulzar, 2021).

Decker Walker - (practices deliberation)
The deliberation model is nonlinear. It comprises of a blend of the modernist and postmodernist. Ornstein and Hunkins (2018) contend that “in the deliberation model of nontechnical curriculum development, educators communicate their views to their colleagues and sometimes to students regarding education’s goals and what should be taught” (p.218).

John (2011) notes that in Decker Walker’s naturalistic model which focuses on deliberation, the school’s culture plays an important role where ideas, beliefs and vision are considered in the deliberation phase. After deliberations of these take place, a common consensus is decided on and implementation takes place. Please see below:

Platforms

$$\downarrow$$

Deliberations

$$\downarrow$$

Curriculum Design

A comparison and contrast between the two models within a Caribbean context.
The Hilda Taba model is a modified version of The Ralph Tyler’s model. When one looks at the steps in Taba’s model and Decker Walker’s model, you will first notice that they are more steps in Taba’s model than in Walker’s model. One will also notice that the deliberations process is not a step in the Hilda Taba model. This is in alignment with the technical scientific approach where curriculum is designed at the ministry level then passed on to schools to be taught. The teachers or other stakeholders at the school have no input in what is placed in the curriculum to be taught to students. This is typical of many education systems in the Caribbean. Take for example, Trinidad and Tobago where Morris (1985) argues that “decisions tend to be made and are handed down to be implemented by teachers who get little opportunity to make inputs” (p. 50-51).

In the Taba model, the school’s culture, ideas, beliefs, and vision are not considered in the formulation of curricula as noted in Walker’s model above. Taba chooses to focus on the output/ results from students, making the evaluation process her focus as listed in her final step in her model. Ornstein and Hunkins (2018) contend that “people who favor technical scientific models prioritize knowledge acquisition and an educational system that is maximally efficient” (p. 211). However, in contrast, Walker focuses on the student and not the student’s output. Examples of both Taba and Walker’s models can be found in the Caribbean. Taba’s model is seen where the Caribbean Examination Council (CXC) and the Ministries of Education in the Caribbean push syllabi in the schools that are exam driven and are designed to cover all the topics proposed by CXC. In Barbados, students are rewarded by gaining scholarships and exhibitions to gain entrance into territory institutions (The planning and research section, Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, 2000).

Ornstein and Hunkins (2018) propose that Taba believes “curriculum should be designed by its users. Teachers should begin by creating specific teaching-learning units for their students and then build to a general design” (p. 213). This is a slight deviation from the technical scientific approach. This belief is similar to Walker’s belief where Walker stresses that teachers should be allowed to contribute to the material that is taught to their students in the deliberation process. However, in Barbados, The Planning and Research section, Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture (2000) states that the curriculum development unit of the Ministry of Education is responsible for “the development, implementation and supervision of curriculum; assisting and planning of workshops/seminars for teachers…” (p. 22).