Curriculum Design

The three major curriculum designs are respectively as follows: subject- centered, learner- centered,
and problem- centered. The subject- centered curriculum design includes subject design, discipline
design, broad fields design, correlation design, process design (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004). The main
difference of these subcategories of subject- centered design is that they all focus on subjects and
contents specific the cultures more in designing the curriculum. Basically, the subject- centered design
is the most popular and widely applied one among. In terms of the subcategories of this design, in the
subject design, the curriculum is divided into subjects or contents, and teachers are trained to be
specialized in different subjects. This idea roots in the rationale that according to Morrison (as cited in
Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004), this way of organizing the curriculum will lead to better results in literacy
in the elementary school. This design is quite different from others since this one is rather
compartmentalized ignoring the students needs and placing the textbook and teacher at the center.
This may even explain the reason of the teachers rush in covering all the subjects on time, which
results in students knowing nothing about everything (Burns & Grooks, 1970) i.e. in Turkeys context.
Thus, it is criticized for putting students in a passive role limiting the students inquiry skills. Different
from the subject design, in discipline- center design, the students are treated as wholly competent in
comprehending any topic that they are expected to construct their own knowledge independently
without depending upon a teacher as a dominant figure. However, as a common feature of both
designs, they are criticized for ignoring the great amount of knowledge which cannot be
compartmentalized as a discipline or subject such as humanism, vocational education etc. As Pring
(1975) underlines, the division of knowledge may stand as an artificial practice leaving the unity of
reality in humans lives out. I can claim the same accordingly that no single discipline should have a
complete control of the way of students understanding or comprehending the environment wholly.
Therefore, at this point, a more interdisciplinary curriculum design, broad fields design, is suggested.
This design lets students to approach content from a number of disciplines so as to give students
chances to construct and apply their knowledge in an integral, multidimensional way (Ornstain &
Hunkins, 2004). It is for sure that this design offers many advantages to the students who wish to
concentrate on one field, thus in turns increases the width of their filed knowledge; however, the
question of quality remains constant (Skilbeck & Browne, 1975). Therefore a curriculum design is put
forward offering designing in an in-between way. In correlation design, the design focuses on
correlating two subjects, so this way it leads to neither the whole separation of subjects nor a wholly
dependent interdisciplinary model. However, this design requires teachers of two different subjects to
work collaboratively; therefore first it requires teachers to work together. This may be difficult as
Ornstein & Hunkins (2004) emphasizes since few teachers would have time and skill to do that. An
alternative to discipline- design, process design is made available, in which the design concentrates on
students constructing how knowledge can be generated without integrating all the subjects. For
instance, in teaching how to read in English, a language teacher may include the critical thinking skills

Curriculum Design

without sticking to teaching the sub-skills of reading to make it possible for students to adapt these
strategies instead of including reading texts in all themes from different areas or in integrated skills.
Again, this is somewhat difficult due to its complexity on the part of the teachers or such practices
(improving the students critical thinking, problem- solving, conceptualizing skills according to
Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004) taking a long time are difficult for teachers to assure whether the desired
behaviour is achieved or not. As for me, this is an appropriate design in this dynamic and information
overloading world to continue supporting the students although they leave the instructional system.
As for learner- centered designs, as many people believe that all knowledge represents a
human construct (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p.254). It is believed that subjects are also constructs,
thus they are not apart from the real life. Based on this view, this design may seem to be close to
discipline designs in terms of their closeness to interdisciplinary feature; however learner- centered
designs do not focus on only subjects. Besides, this design may also have commonalities with the
process design since this also relies on fostering childrens critical, rational and problem- solving
skills; still, again in this design, developing the skills through subjects is not the concern. As Dewey
(cited in Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004) suggests, the humans have high intrinsic interests which urge
them to be curious about the outside world. This is the same for children who are interested in
exploring their environment interesting them. This design includes a number of designs which are
child- centered, experience- centered, romantic designs, humanistic designs. In child- centered and
experience designs, the learning experiences are not happened to be derived from the separate subjects
but students environments. Through child- centered design, the design of the curriculum and learning
is under the control of teachers and children, and based on the childrens interests and needs. This
design gives the students opportunities to construct their own knowledge without separating the
knowledge outside into pieces. Experience- centered design is a little different from the child- centered
curriculum design in that it does not require any pre- planned curriculum framework but the one done
spontaneously by the teacher in response to the classroom conditions and students interests. This one
is most close to the Woodruffs model for in- life internship curriculum as cited in Burns & Brooks
(1970). A childs wish to express himself is also taken into account and given him chance to base the
experiences in the school to his previous (before schooling) experiences. As a result, knowledge is
constructed through the reflection of the experiences in the school. As for the romantic- designs, quite
different from all those designs discussed till now, reflective learning comes into prominence. The
knowledge is constructed through the learners own efforts without being exposed to a leading power,
say teacher. In this model, the society is viewed as flawed that youth through education is expected to
prompt democratic empowerment, social justice, and respect for diversity (Ornstein & Hunkins,
2004, p.257). Therefore, students constitute the knowledge through raising questions regarding the
societys situation and evaluate the knowledge accordingly with the help of their teachers. Just as in
other learner- centered designs, humanistic design puts the emphasis on empowering the person by

Curriculum Design

giving them a voice in the curriculum design. Apart from others, this design heavily relies on the
Maslows concept of self- actualization. Even though in child- centered design, this design does not
give prominence to neither the subject nor the experiences. Its main idea is to give the students a
chance to choose what to study- hence to develop the self through feelings. However, just like in
correlation design, this design requires great teacher skills to cope with.
Lastly, problem- centered design, as the name suggests, concentrates on the problems of the
society and individuals. Besides, it cares for the content of the problems pre-planned in the curriculum
and learners development; thus, it is different from others (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004). The preselected and potentially adjustable problems may draw on:

the life situations to promote successful functioning in the society

the needs and interests of the students to be met by the schools

integrating all past and present experiences of students to encourage active thinking and
information processing.

However, this design is criticized for its lack in focus on culture and on fundamental subjects and in
required teacher skills. Besides, the re-constructionist side of this design puts an emphasis on
educating students to become good for the society, basically open to change in this century, and
become the change agents for a good society.
All in all, as for me, because each design or sub-category has commonalities or differences
with others and also both advantages and disadvantages, without allowing the designs to reflect a
particular single design, the curriculum can be built upon in a coherent integrative way. Otherwise, the
schooling may turn out to limit the students learning experiences and self- development.

References
Browne, J. B. & Skillbeck, M. (1976). Case Study: Teacher Education. Golby, M.,

Greenwald, J.,

West, R. (Eds.). London: The Open University Pres.

Burns, R.W., Brooks, G.D. (1970). Curriculum design in a changing world. New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications.
Hunkins, F.P., & Ornstein, A.C. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues (4th
edition). Englawood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pring, R. (1976). Curriculum integration. Golby, M., Grrenwald, J., West, R. (Eds.). London:
Open University Pres.

The