Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Curriculum design models aren't just theoretical frameworks gathering dust in education textbooks—they're the architectural blueprints that determine how learning experiences get built from the ground up. When you understand these models, you're gaining insight into why schools teach what they teach, how they sequence learning, and who gets to make those decisions. These are the foundational questions that shape every classroom, every assessment, and every educational reform initiative you'll encounter.
You're being tested on your ability to distinguish between top-down versus bottom-up approaches, recognize when alignment between objectives, instruction, and assessment matters most, and understand how different models prioritize student needs, teacher expertise, or societal demands. Don't just memorize the names and steps—know what problem each model solves and when you'd recommend one approach over another.
These models start with a clear destination in mind. The underlying principle is that effective curriculum begins with precisely defined outcomes, then works systematically to achieve them. This approach emphasizes measurability, alignment, and accountability.
Compare: Tyler's Rational Model vs. Backward Design—both prioritize clear objectives and alignment, but Tyler's model emerged from behaviorist traditions emphasizing measurable outcomes, while Backward Design emphasizes understanding and transfer. If asked which model best supports deep learning over rote memorization, Backward Design is your answer.
These models recognize that the people closest to students—teachers—often have the most valuable insights for curriculum development. The core principle is that effective curricula emerge from practitioner expertise and collaborative dialogue rather than top-down mandates.
Compare: Taba's Grassroots Model vs. Walker's Naturalistic Model—both value teacher input and collaboration, but Taba provides a structured seven-step process while Walker embraces the messiness of real curriculum work. Use Taba when explaining systematic teacher-led development; use Walker when discussing how curricula actually evolve in practice.
These models view curriculum development as an ongoing, interconnected process involving multiple stakeholders and continuous improvement. The underlying principle is that curriculum is never "finished"—it requires constant evaluation, feedback, and revision.
Compare: Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis vs. Oliva Model—both emphasize comprehensive, ongoing curriculum development, but Saylor et al. focus more on contextual factors shaping initial design, while Oliva emphasizes the cyclical nature of continuous improvement. Both reject one-and-done curriculum development.
These models focus less on who develops curriculum and more on how content should be structured for optimal learning. The core principle is that the arrangement and connection of content significantly impacts student understanding and retention.
Compare: Spiral Curriculum vs. Integrated Curriculum—both aim to deepen understanding, but through different mechanisms. Spiral curriculum achieves depth through repeated, increasingly complex encounters with the same concepts over time. Integrated curriculum achieves depth through connecting concepts across disciplines at a single point in time.
These models place student learning processes—rather than content coverage or teacher planning—at the center of curriculum design. The underlying principle is that students learn most effectively when actively constructing knowledge through meaningful challenges.
Compare: Problem-Based Learning vs. Understanding by Design—both prioritize application over memorization, but PBL uses problems as the entry point for learning new content, while UbD uses performance tasks as assessments after instruction. PBL is a pedagogical approach; UbD is a planning framework.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Objective-first planning | Tyler's Rational Model, Backward Design, UbD |
| Teacher-led development | Taba's Grassroots Model, Walker's Naturalistic Model |
| Continuous improvement cycles | Oliva Model, Saylor/Alexander/Lewis Model |
| Content sequencing | Spiral Curriculum Model |
| Cross-disciplinary integration | Integrated Curriculum Model |
| Student inquiry and application | Problem-Based Learning, UbD |
| Contextual adaptability | Walker's Naturalistic Model, Saylor/Alexander/Lewis |
| Stakeholder collaboration | Oliva Model, Walker's Naturalistic Model |
Which two models both emphasize starting with clear objectives but differ in their emphasis on deep understanding versus measurable outcomes? What distinguishes their approaches?
A school district wants teachers to lead curriculum development rather than implement externally designed materials. Which model provides the most structured process for this, and what are its seven steps?
Compare and contrast the Spiral Curriculum Model and the Integrated Curriculum Model. How does each approach achieve deeper student understanding, and in what situations might you recommend one over the other?
If an FRQ asks you to recommend a curriculum model for a school that values ongoing revision and multiple stakeholder input, which two models would be strongest choices and why?
A teacher argues that curriculum should emerge organically from classroom realities rather than follow predetermined steps. Which model best supports this perspective, and how does it differ from Taba's approach?