The Analysis of Higher Education Curriculum Design through Decker Walker Model

Document Type : Original Article



Curriculum development and curriculum design are based on many different models that can be divided into two major categories: traditional and new conceptualization. One of the perfect views in the traditional curriculum models is the Decker Walker model. In this model, the curriculum development process contains three stages: platform, deliberation and design. The main goal of this paper is the analysis of higher education curriculum development based on these three stages of Walker model. Naturalistic existence of the Walker model led the research method to a qualitative one. Therefore, data was collected by interviews with two categories of senior and executive managers in the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. The data analysis methods were summarization, categorization and interpretation.
The results showed that in Iran, field curriculum is considered as the syllabus. The curriculum planning system in higher education may be apparently compatible with the Walker model, but not in detail. The reasons for this lack of compatibility are the presence of a central and top-down system and lack of curriculum designing centers in universities. In other words, the thing that comes out of curriculum design sessions is a syllabus that is used in departments without any change or sometimes with slight changes.    


اجتهادی، مصطفی (1374). بررسی توان دانشگاه‌ها از مصوبه شورای‌عالی برنامه‌ریزی در مورد واگذاری پاره‌ای اختیارات به دانشگاه‌ها. فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی، شماره 9‌، ص 159-143.
بازرگان، عباس (1374). ارزیابی درونی دانشگاهی و کاربرد آن در بهبود مستمر کیفیت آموزش عالی. فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی، شماره 3 و 4‌، ص 22-1.
فتحی واجارگاه، کورش (1388). اصول و مفاهیم برنامه‌ریزی درسی. تهران: انتشارات دانش روز.
فتحی واجارگاه، کورش؛ مؤمنی، حسین (1387). بررسی نقش عوامل مؤثر بر مشارکت اعضای هیأت علمی در برنامه‌ریزی درسی دانشگاهی. مجله انجمن آموزش عالی ایران، شماره 1، 165-139.
مهرمحمدی، محمود (1381). پژوهش مبتنی بر عمل فکورانه در فرایند برنامه‌ریزی درسیک نظریه عمل‌گرای شواب. فصلنامه نوآوری آموزشی، شماره 1 سال اول (37-23).
مهرمحمدی، محمود (1387). برنامه درسی: نظرگاه‌ها، رویکردها و چشم‌اندازها. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
مهرمحمدی، محمود (1387الف). تحلیلی بر سیاست کاهش تمرکز از برنامه‌ریزی درسی در آموزش عالی ایران: ضرورت‌ها و فرصت‌ها. مجله انجمن آموزش عالی ایران، شماره 3، (18-1).
نوروززاده، رضا و همکاران (1385). وضعیت سهم مشارکت دانشگاه‌ها در بازنگری برنامه‌های مصوب شورای عالی برنامه‌ریزی. فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی، شماره 42، ص 93-71.
وزیری، مژده (1378). نظام برنامه‌ریزی درسی در آموزش عالی ایران: ویژگی‌ها و جهت‌گیری‌ها. رساله دکتری، تهران دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.‌
Akker, J.J.H. van den. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: an introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper & U. Hameyer (Eds.). Curriculum landscape and trends. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chan, B (1977). After Tyler, What? A Current Issue in Curriculum Theory. Education Journal, No.VI
DeZure, Deborah (2005). Innovation in Undergraduate Curriculum. In: Encyclopedia of Education, James W. Guthrie (Editor), MacMillan Reference Library.
Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
George, Judith W. (2009). Classical Curriculum Design. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, (8)2: 160-179
Glathorn, P and et al (2005). Curriculum Leadership. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Press.
 Herod, Lori (2003). Curriculum Deliberation Online. Literacies, no fall.
Hewitt, T. W (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: what we teach and why. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications
Howard, Judith (2007). Curriculum Development. Available in:
Jackson, P. (1992). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (3-40). New York: Macmillan.
Keogh, J and et al (2010). Involving the Stakeholders in the Curriculum Process: A Recipe for Success? Nurse Education Today, no 30, 37-43.
Knight, P. T. (2001). Complexity and curriculum: A process approach to curriculum-making. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3): 369-381.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Livingston, Don (2007). Learning the Art of Curriculum Deliberation: One Professor’s Story. Georgia Educational Researcher, (5)1.
Marsh, C. & Willis, P. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches. ongoing issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Marsh, C.J. (1997). Perspectives: Key concepts for understanding curriculum 1. London: Falmer Press.
McTighe, J. and Wiggins, G. (2005). the Understanding by Design Handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mulder, M (1991). Deliberation in Curriculum Conferences. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, (6)4: 325-339.
Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (1993). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Parker, J. (2003). Reconceptualising the curriculum: From commodification to transformation. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(4): 529-543.
Reid, W. (1978). Thinking about the curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Reid, William (1999). Curriculum as Institution and Practice: Essays in the Deliberative Tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwab, J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Smith, M. K. (2000). Curriculum theory and practice. The encyclopedia of informal education,
Smith, M. K. (2000). Curriculum theory and practice. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Available at
Stark, Joan S. and Lattuca, Lisa R. (1997). Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tamir, Pinchas (1984). Curriculum Development in Science. Research in Science Education, 1984, 14, 198-205.
Walker, D. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.