Abstract:

As teachers and educational designers, we reach for models to help guide our curriculum designs. There are a multiplicity from which to choose, most of which have been developed over the last forty years to meet specific pedagogic challenges in different learning contexts. However, many of the most commonly used models can broadly fit into one of two overall types: those which focus on content delivery, and those which walk through a project planning/instructional design approach.

Tyler’s four stage work on curriculum design principles (1949) has significantly informed the work of many subsequent curriculum models. Each subsequent model elaborates on Tyler’s work, integrating various contextual and ethical factors and their impact on the curriculum design process. Some of the most frequently used models are explicitly instructional, such as the ADDIE and the ASSURE models. These models guide users through a linear model to achieve a defined project, which may not always fit the often messy and non-linear requirements of a course design – or redesign – process. Other models are more focused on content delivery, such as that of Dick & Carey (1996).

These models offer wisdom and insight into many aspects of the educational design process—particularly for the novice designer. However, the question must be asked about the extent to which any of them suits the needs of the contemporary course and curriculum creation environment. Indeed, are we attempting to use models which are explicitly constructed around the requirements of online learning environments in offline, face-to-face settings, where their structure and affordances do not necessarily meet the pedagogic requirements of the context? There can be space in these models for complex, nuanced course development, even if this is not explicit. But does this lack of explicit space limit their effectiveness?

Current pedagogic developments are increasingly collaborative, challenging and dynamic. We propose there is a need for a course design model and process which reflects these changed priorities. In short, there is a need for a middle way, between the stepped, linear, project-focused approach of instructional models like Tyler’s (1949) and ADDIE, and the looseness and unbounded creative space of constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003) or backwards design (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998).

The model that we propose is intended to be used by teachers to work through the course design process with sufficient scaffolding but without rigidity. It includes stages identifying the range of inputs and influences on a curriculum, exit competencies, teaching constraints and contexts, learning outcomes and assessments to measure them, and evaluation of the curriculum design. Our model seeks to enable that some of the principles of best-practice, aligned curriculum development can be operationalised and applied to a broad range of teaching settings.

Curriculum design is a profoundly purposive process. There is always a clear rationale guiding the undertaking; whether learner-led, teacher-led, external stakeholder-led or pragmatic – or more often than not, a combination of several of these drivers. We offer a model that enables teachers to flexibly develop their courses supported by sound educational design principles.

Keywords:

Curriculum design, course design models, learning design, educational design.