Considering Tyler’s Curriculum Model in Health and Physical Education
Keywords:
curriculum, health and physical education, objectivesAbstract
Tyler’s objectives curriculum model has been a strong influence in the field of curriculum development since its publication in 1949. The influence of this model remains strong despite its age, demonstrating the importance of the questions Tyler based his model around. This discussion paper examines Tyler’s (1949) objectives curriculum model; particularly its advantages and disadvantages and its current relevance. This analysis will occur with the context of health and physical education subject area.
References
Arnold, P. (1988). Education, movement and the curriculum. London: Falmer. Beyer, L., & Apple, M. (1998). The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (2nd ed). Albany: State University of New York.
Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2010). Curriculum construction. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson. Centre for University Teaching. (2009). Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www. flinders.edu.au/teaching/teaching-strategies/curriculum-development/curriculum. cfm
Chen, C., Chen, Y., & Cheng, K. (1996). A study on comparing the objective model in curriculum planning between Taiwan and America. Retrieved from http://rnd2. ncue.edu.tw/ezcatfiles/b004/img/img/316/96-1-8p.pdf.
Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2005). Backward design: What goes around comes around, or haven’t we seen this before? Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 9(2), 105-122.
Cruickshank, V., & Swabey, K. (2013). Yes, we can play games differently: Socialisation of PETE teachers. Journal of Research, 7(1), 1-7.
Denham, T. (2002). Comparison of two curriculum/instructional design models: Ralph W. Tyler and Siena College accounting class, ACCT205. Retrieved from http:// ezproxy.utas.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62202965?accountid=14245.
Hlebowitsh, P. (2005). Generational ideas in curriculum: A historical triangulation. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1), 73-87.
John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498.
Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The Tyler rationale revisited. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 81-8.
Lounsbery, M., & McKenzie, T. (2015). Physically literate and physically educated: A rose by any other name? Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 139-144.
McKernan, J. (1993). Some limitations of outcome-based education. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(4), 343-53.
Metzler, M. (2011). Instructional models for physical education. Scottsdale, AZ: Halcomb Hathaway.
Ministry of Education. (2017). Teaching as inquiry. Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.
org.nz/Curriculum-stories/Case-studies/Teachers-as-learners-Inquiry/Teaching-as-inquiry#top
Pedersen, S., Cooley, P., & Cruickshank, V. (2017). Caution regarding exergames: A skill
acquisition perspective. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(3), 246-256.
Smith, D., & Lovat, T. (1995). Curriculum: Action on reflection revisited (3rd ed). Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science.
Smith, D., & Lovat, T. (2003). Curriculum: Action on reflection (4th ed). Melbourne, VIC: Thomson.
Tinning, R., MacDonald, D., Wright, J., & Hickey, C. (2001). Becoming a physical education teacher. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Journal of Education and Educational Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
