series of variables of imbrications such as: pedagogical

objectives, instruction contents, pedagogical methods,

organizational forms of instruction, forms and methods of
evaluation, the connection between these being very strong that
these variables become practically negotiable.
2. Curricular models
Currently in the literature designated for the curriculum there are
also presented the analyses of different curricular models, some
more complicated then others and some more elaborate than
others.
In what concerns notoriety, not all models are as well know, but
from there most often you find invoked are the models elaborated
by F.Bobbitt, W.Charters, R.W. Tylwe, H.Taba ,D. Walker,C.
McGee ,D. Potolea.
Without going into details, we will shortly present the models of
these authors starting with the one elaborated by F.Bobitt (1924,
apud. Ion Negre-Dobridor, 2008) which consists of following the
next steps
1. This step consists of eliminating the list of 800 objectives
that are impractical and cannot be reached.
2. The curricular designer sets the instructional objectives
necessary for adult life
3. The designer eliminates/avoids objectives that would affect
in any way the life of the community in which the student
will live as a adult.
4. The designer draws the community in the process of
stabilization and realization of objectives.
5. The designer sets the set of objectives for those who also
learn the individual objectives for every student or group of
students.
6. The designer calculates the time realization of the objectives
setting plans and programs to unfold the educational
process.

This model is truly a Curriculum by objectives in which hierarchy

or the progress of stages seems logic and implicatively the steps
included in every stage, but its worth seems more detectable in
the explicative plan and less in the action one, where the
teacher actually exerts his competence in every lesson or in every
sequence of instruction.
Almost as if he knew the weaknesses of the model elaborated by
Fr. Bobbitt, W.W. Charters elaborated a simpler curricular model
and we think it is more direct, which makes it more accessible to
its users who should know that elaborating the curriculum means
going through the following steps:
I. Setting some construction principles which refer to:
a) goals, set points)program objectives ;c)individual
tasks)learning experiences)instructional activities;
II. Using behavior objectives:
Selection
Accentuation
Elimination
Implication
Differentiation
Stages

III. Deriving the objectives from the necessities of learning and

evaluation trough analyses.
IV. The actual construction of the curriculum understood as a
discipline and process in which the subjects of study intertwine.
Continuing, we want to make the statement that one of the most
known curricular models is the one elaborated by R.W. Tyler and is
presented in one of his works named Basic Principles of
Curriculum and Instruction, published in 1949 and quoted in all
the works designated for curricular approach.

Currently speaking, the model elaborated by Tyler contains 4

stages which presume answers to the following questions:
I.
II.
III.
IV.

What educational goals does the school want to reach?

How can the learning experiences be selected in order to
complete these objectives?
How can the learning objectives be organized for effective
instruction?
How can the efficiency of the learning experience be
evaluated?

As can be seen, this model which is not too sophisticated implies

the rigorous respecting of the hierarchy of following the four
steps, starting with the objectives and ending with the evaluation,
which can be very valuable not only to the curricular designers
but also to the usual practitioners who can be helped to act
adequately in every stage included in Tylers Rational.
Noticing some of the flaws of the model de R. W. Tyler created,
another well-known author in the domain of the curriculum,
H.Taba elaborated an interactive model which consisted in the
following configuration:
Objectives
Content
Evaluation
Methods
I.
II.
III.
IV.

Objectives
Choosing the learning experiences
Organizing the learning experience
Evaluation

This model was not complicated and unlike the one elaborated by
R. W. Tyler, which is a linear model, Hilda Tabas model makes

interactions between the four variables functional, which

obviously constitutes the hard centre of any curriculum.
Finally, the last foreign model which we have in view is the one
elaborated by the new- Zealander Clive Mc.Gee(1997,p.44)which
structures five decisional categories as follows:
a) Decisions resulted from the situational analyses;
b) Decisions about intentions, purposes, and objectives;
c) Decisions about the content that is to be studied;
d) Decisions about learning and instruction activities;
e) Decisions about the evaluation of teaching and learning

We believe that these types of decisions are important in

elaborating the curriculum and equally important is the fact that
in this model interactions between al five categories are
established, which confers this model functionality.
In the parameter of Romanian pedagogy, D.
Potolea(2002)identifies two curricular models :
a) the triangular model
b) the pentagonal model
a) The triangular model includes curricular variables, educational
finalities, instruction contents and the type of instruction-learning.
The author considers that these variables are so important that
they should be found in any curriculum.
D. Potolea makes a series of observations on the triangular model
through which he shows the notes of specificity of this genre:
1. The triangular structure requires functional relations between
all variables, with the acceptance of the priority of the educational
finalities.

2.situating the learning discipline in the centre of the triangle

means that in the development ,construction and evaluation of
the scholar discipline ,finalities ,contents and time are mandatory
objectives.
3. each of the three categories of variables require particular
problems of research, indicating the diverse thematic register of
curricular research
Thus, surrounding the finalities are theoretic-method questions
as:
-whish are the main categories of educational finalities and in
what relations are they in?
-what factors determine the elaboration of the finalities, what
pedagogical functions do the objectives have?
-which are the definitions methods of the objectives
-what method systems can be used in the classification of the
objectives?
Content variables generate other questions:
-what is the meaning and the typology of the content?
-which are the sources and criteria of content selection?
-which are the ways of pedagogical organization of content, when
and in what conditions do these become accessible to the
students?

Finally, the time variable of instruction-learning correlates with

specific problems:
-how is the time allocated?
-what does the effective time mean and in what relation is it with
the allocated time?
-how do you identify the necessary time for an individual to learn?

b) The second curricular model is the pentagonal one and its first
characteristic is the fact that it includes more variables: finalities,
instruction contents, instruction-learning time, instruction
strategies, and evaluation strategies.
Also, as can easily be anticipated this model multiplicities the
relational functional network because in the new context each
curricular variable correlates with the other four not with two
other, as in the triangular model.

As well, we have to make the statement that this model is more

efficient and guarantees in greater respect the success of the
instruction-learning activity, because the five variables are
intricate through the relations existing between them that any
separation will end with bad effects in the scholastic
performances of the students in the learning activity.
These negative effects become visible especially in the case of
educational reforms when it is tried for example, only the
renovation of the instruction contents without having in view
other aspects which tie to the instruction models or the
evaluation strategies.
The fact that there is a current tendency to investigate from more
angles the vast problematic of the curriculum is characterized by
the existence of more conceptual derivations which suggest the
existence of more types of curriculum (categories) ,each with its
own particularities and effects on the students that are to
assimilate it.
Moving from the curricular models to the typology of the
curriculum, it is mentionable that in more recent works or in some
pedagogical works appears many classifications of the curriculum.
For example, Ph. Perrenoud (1993, p. 61) dissociates three types
of curriculum as following:
a)the formal or explicit curriculum ,the one conceived by the
specialists;

b)the real or effective curriculum, constituted by structured

ensemble of the formative experiences of the student;
c)the hidden curriculum, represented by the ensemble of
formative unnoticed experiences, and we consider this
classification interesting, but also by other authors such as
professor E .Paun(2002,p.21)
O more diverse typology is proposed by C. Cretu (2008, p. 209),
which identifies the next types of curriculum:
a)the recommended curriculum, thought to be the best at a
certain point;
b)the written curriculum, that has an official character and is
specific to a direct educational institution;
c)the taught curriculum, represents the contents transmitted
form teacher to student;
d)the tested curriculum represents the contents included in tests,
examination events and other appreciation instruments of the
educational process;
e)the learnt curriculum ,which signifies the acquisitions acquired
by students as a result of going trough a instruction process;
f)the support curriculum ,which means the additional curricular
materials ,as well as text and exercise books, problems etc.
With what concerns us, we opt for the following typology of the
curriculum which we think is most suitable not only for the
curricular designer but also for the practitioners.
a)the formal or written curriculum, objectified in the curricular
projection documents(learning plans, analytical programs,
manuals)elaborated by specialists
b) the taught or transmitted curriculum, which represents the
educational teacherized contents; which were processed and
made accessible as to be understood by students

Bibliographical references
1. Cretu, C.,The theory and methodology of the curriculum in
Psiho-pedagogy for the definitivation exams and teachers grades
Iasi, Polirom, 2008
2. DEX, second edition , Bucureti, Univers Enciclopedic, 1998
3. Ionescu, M., Bocos, M., Treatee of modern didactics , Pitesti,
Editura Paralela
45, 2009
4. Marcu F., Maneca, C., Neologism Dictionary,third edition
Bucureti,
Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romnia, 1978
5. Negres-Dobridor, I.,The general theory of the educational
curriculum, Iasi,
Polirom, 2008
6. Perrenoud, Ph., Curriculum: le formel, le riel, le cach n
Houssaye, J., (dir.), La
pdagogie: une encyclopdie pour aujourd`hui, ESF diteur, 1993
7. Potolea, DThe conceptualization of the curriculum . A multidimensional approach towards pedagogy , (coord. E. Pun, D.
Potolea), Iasi, Polirom, 2002
8. Raynal, Fr., Rieunier, A., Pedagogie:Dictionnaire des concepts
cls, Paris, ESF
diteur, 1997

9. Schaub, H., Zencke, G. K., Pedagogic dictionary, Iasi, Polirom

Publishing,
2001
10. Stefan M., Pedagogic Lexicon, Bucuresti, Aramis Publishing,
2006__