Curriculum Evaluation Using Tylers Goal Attainment Model or Objectives-Centered Model

By: Shaaban Kitindi Fundi

In this paper I will describe the Tyler model while emphasizing its evaluative component.
I will use the DeKalb County Science Curriculum in my analysis. Specifically, I will use
Dunwoody High School students outcomes data (end of course test-EOCT) for physical science
and biology to evaluate the curriculum. However, before I start the evaluation, I will provide a
brief overview of the Tyler model (what is it? what are its parts? and what are the criticisms of
the model?) and finally I will conclude by summarizing the steps I followed to complete the
evaluation.
Tylers goal attainment model or sometimes called the objectives-centered model is the
basis for most common models in curriculum design, development and evaluation. The Tyler
model is comprised of four major parts. These are: 1) defining objectives of the learning
experience; 2) identifying learning activities for meeting the defined objectives; 3) organizing the
learning activities for attaining the defined objectives; and 4) evaluating and assessing the
learning experiences. In this paper I will most deal with the evaluation component of the model.
However, before I start evaluating the science curriculum for DeKalb County, I start with a brief
discussion of the Tyler model, what it is, its parts, and what it emphasizes.
The Tyler Model begins by defining the objectives of the learning experience. These
objectives must have relevancy to the field of study and to the overall curriculum (Keating,
2006). Tylers model obtains the curriculum objectives from three sources: 1) the student, 2) the
society, and 3) the subject matter. When defining the objectives of a learning experience Tyler
gives emphasis on the input of students, the community and the subject content. Tyler believes
that curriculum objectives that do not address the needs and interests of students, the community
and the subject matter will not be the best curriculum. The second part of the Tylers model

involves the identification of learning activities that will allow students to meet the defined
objectives. To emphasis the importance of identifying learning activities that meets defined
objectives, Tyler states that the important thing is for students to discover content that is useful
and meaningful to them (Meek, 1993, p. 83). In a way Tyler is a strong supporter of the studentcentered approach to learning. Overall, Tylers model is designed to measure the degree to which
pre-defined objectives and goals have been attained. In addition, the model focus primarily on
the product rather than the process for achieving the goals and objectives of the curriculum.
Therefore, Tylers model is product focused. It evaluates the degree to which the pre-defined
goals and objectives have been attained.
There are several criticisms leveled at the Tylers goal attainment model or the Tylers
objective centered model. The first criticism is that, it is difficult and time consuming to
construct behavioral objectives. Tylers model relies mainly on behavioral objectives. The
objectives in Tylers model comes from three sources (the student, the society, and the subject
matter) and all the three sources have to agree on what objectives needs to be addressed. This is a
cumbersome process. Thus, it is difficult to arrive to consensus easily among the various
stakeholders groups. The second criticism is that, it is too restrictive and covers a small range of
student skills and knowledge. The third criticism is that Tylers model is too dependent on
behavioral objectives and it is difficult to declare plainly in behavioral objectives the objectives
that covers none specific skills such as those for critical thinking, problem solving, and the
objectives related to value acquiring processes (Prideaux, 2003). The fourth and last criticism is
that the objectives in the Tylers model are too student centered and therefore the teachers are not
given any opportunity to manipulate the learning experiences as they see fit to evoke the kind of
learning outcome desired.

To evaluate the DeKalb County School System Science Curriculum, I downloaded the
DeKalb County physical science and biology curriculum at a glance from the districts website.
After a careful look at the curriculum, I realized that both the biology and physical science
curriculum does not fit the many definitions of a true curriculum. They are plainly instructional
guides with standards, units to be covered, and the time allocation for each unit. In my
understanding, a curriculum should encompasses more than a list of standards, units, and time
allocations. According to Robert Gagne (1966) curriculum encompasses four categories. These
categories are: 1) subject matter or content, 2) statements of end objectives or goals, 3) the
sequencing of content, and finally 4) pre-assessment of skills. The DeKalb County Science
Curricular for physical science and biology lack many of these features.
The Dekalb County Science Curriculum at a glance document does not appear to meet
Kerrs definition of curriculum either. According to Kerr (1968) a curriculum is all the learning
which is planned and guided by school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside
or outside the school (Kerr, J. 1968, as cited in Kelly A. V. 2009, p.12). Kerrs definition of the
curriculum together with Gagnes categories of the curriculum appears to encompass more than
just the standards, the units covered, and the time allocated for each unit. In other words, a
curriculum is much broader than a course syllabus or a curriculum guide and it includes both the
planned and the unplanned consequences/effects of the curriculum.
In order to evaluate the biology and physical science curricular at Dunwoody High
School, I created a table containing the Spring EOCT scores for the two courses. The data spans
a range of three years, from spring of 2011 to spring of 2013. I will also compare Dunwoody
EOCT scores with the entire DeKalb Country scores to the score summary of the whole state of
Georgia.

Spring 2011 to 2013 EOCT Score Summary

Location
2011

Biology
2012

2013

2011

% Pass
74

% Pass
85

% Pass
84

% Pass
78

% Pass
73

% Pass
72

School
DeKalb

59

62

63

66

66

83

County
State of

70

73

75

76

78

67

Dunwoody

Physical Science
2012
2013

High

Georgia
Based on the data for the past three years, Dunwoody High School has been meeting the
science curricular objectives in physical science and biology. The year per year pass rates for
biology are much higher at Dunwoody High School than they are for the rest of the county. For
example, in 2011, Dunwoody High School students pass rate for the EOCT biology was 12%
higher than the rest of the DeKalb County average. In the same year, Dunwoody High School
outperformed the state average percentage pass rates by 4%. Thus, the biology percentage pass
rates appear to be much higher at Dunwoody High School when compared to the states EOCT
percent pass averages for the same period.
Similar trends are observed in the percent pass rates of the EOCT scores in physical
science. Dunwoody High school met the physical science curriculum objectives in the year 2011
to 2013. Dunwoody High School data shows a higher percent pass rate when compared to the
average percent pass rates for the Dekalb County. For example, in the year 2012, Dunwoody
High School had 10% more of its students pass the EOCT in physical science than the average
percent pass rate of the entire county. However, Dunwoody High School percent pass rates for

physical science was 5% lower than the average percent pass rate of the state of Georgia.
Overall, Dunwoody High School appears to meet the science curricular objectives in both
biology and physical science. I would recommend Dunwoody High School to set yearly
improvement goals that will help the school to increase the percent pass rates in physical science
from the mid 70s to high 80s in the next three years. In addition, I would recommend
Dunwoody High School to set yearly improvement goals for biology from the mid 80s to the
mid 90s in the next three years.
In summary, I decided to evaluate the DeKalb County science curricular because of my
interest in understanding the countys science curriculum. I chose two courses (biology and
physical science) that have the End of Course Tests to accomplish the evaluation task. In
evaluating the two subjects, I chose to use achievement test data (EOCT). The EOCT data are
readily available in the County website. In this evaluation, I chose the traditional perspective.
The traditional perspective allowed me to look at the objectives, the data, and compare those to
the percent pass scores of the students for the school, the county, and the state. This allowed me
to determine whether the objectives were met or not and if they were met, by what degree?
I believe technology plays a bigger role on how students learn and achieve on
achievement tests. Dunwoody High School has three fully functional computer labs. In addition,
the science department has one hundred STEM LAB laptops, fifty IPADs, and eighty hand-held
student response systems which provides opportunities for students to practice what they have
learning in class using gizmos and virtual labs. Dunwoody High School uses the flipped
classroom model. I believe the combination of in class instruction and virtual classrooms help
students meet the science curricular objectives for the county and the state.
Reference

Gagne, R. W. (1967). Curriculum research and the pro- motion of learning. In R. W. Tyler, R. M.
Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curricular evaluation. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Prideaux, D. (2003). Curriculum design: ABC of learning and teaching in medicine. British
Medical Journal, 326(7383): 268-270.
Meek, A. (1993). On setting the highest standards: A conversation with Ralph Tyler. Educational
Leadership, 50, 83-86.
Kerr, J. F. (1968). The problem of curriculum reform, in John F. Kerr (Ed.), changing the
curriculum. London: University of London Press.
Keating, S. (2006). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.