The contextual filters model of course planning

The contextual filters model of course planning was develop by:

Joan Stark, Malcolm A. Lowther,
Gretchen Martens, Patricia A. Wren,
Kathleen M. Shaw, Michel Genthon,
Richard Benley, Michael Ryan
Established in 1990 as part of their research at the University of Michigan
National Center for Research to improve post-secondary Teaching and learning.

Three things that we need to understand about the model

1. Content influence – encompass faculty member`s background and
associated disciplinary and educational beliefs.
2. Contextual influences- includes influences outside the instructor’s
immediate control that cause adjustments such as student characteristics
or instructional materials.
3. Form- includes the processes that are followed when designing courses.
 Content and background considerations(content)

Influence of faculty Faculty views of Purposes of

background and their academic
Education espoused by
feilds
characteristics faculty

Goals, Students, Schedules,

Campus services, resources

Feedback
adjustments
Select content

Arrange content

Choose process

DYNAMIC MODEL OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

The dynamic models describe how curriculum workers develop curricula in
various educational contexts. The dynamic curriculum development models are
usually used in school-based settings.
- Is develop by Decker Walker (1971).
- In dynamic model curriculum is not considered as linear sequence because
it can start with any element and proceed any order.
Three phases
1. Platform phase- walkers suggest that curriculum workers bring with them
their individual beliefs, knowledge, and values.
 2. Deliberation phase- it involves identifying which facts are needed for means
and ends, generating alternates and considering the consequences of these
alternatives.
3. Design phase- it involves planning, decision making, and the actual
development of the curriculum.

The strengths of the dynamic or interactional models include the following;

1. It is claimed by the proponents of these models that they are realistic way
of handling curriculum development.
2. By avoiding the obsession with writing objections and indeed behavioral
objectives at that, developers are free to be more creative. The model
allows the developer to change the order of planning, to move to and from
among the curriculum element.
3. Another strength of the model is its flexibility when the development task is
approached. The flexibility arises from the suggestion that developers may
begin at any point in the curriculum process that is appropriate to their
needs.

The weakness of the dynamic models of curriculum development include

the following:

1. The dynamic models appear confusing and lacking in direction. Brady

states that “the model is not systematic in the way the objective model
is it has no on fixed direction or sequence.
2. The downplaying of objectives in the dynamic model has been seen as
its other weakness. According to Print (1989), a question that is often
asked by opponents of the interaction model is – how do you know
where you are going if you pose few or no objectives? If objectives
provide guidance and direction, the argument goes, then they must be
stated in order to be effective.