The Tyler rationale is an approach to curriculum theory and practice that has a primary focus on reaching an outcome and later evaluating if the outcome was attained. This is one of the many approaches to curriculum development that is found within the reading “Curriculum Theory and Practice” by Smith. It is a systematic process which places emphasis on the creation of behavioural objectives that can potentially be applied across all subjects. A clear idea of the outcomes are given “so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated” (Smith, 1996, 2000, p. 4). Here we see a brief summary of the four fundamental questions that this theory is based on. This is still something that we can see being used in our education system today as we discussed in class. When I think back to my schooling, a major way in which I experienced the Tyler rationale was through the use of departmental exams. These exams serve as the main form of assessment to ensure that students learn everything they were supposed to over the course of the whole school year. Being that throughout different schools in Saskatchewan, all students take the exact same test at the exact same time as to show how strict the outcomes were. I found that most of my science and math classes involved the teachers always prioritizing our success on the final departmental exam. The lessons were oriented around only material that would be on the departmental exam and no extra material was given. I was also always evaluated during the middle of the school year by completing tests that would show what I knew and what I didn’t understand. We would rarely focus on problems that students got wrong because we had to move on to the next topic in order to meet all the objectives. Another school experience that I had regarding the Tyler rationale is the multiple classes where I didn’t really have the ability to learn on my own. There were times when I felt that the classes were too guided and I was barely even given the opportunity to ask myself questions.

There are quite a few limitations of the Tyler rationale being that it can make some important aspects of education impossible. It is a very traditional approach to the curriculum. A major problem with this approach is the fact that the students have basically no freedom and “can end up with little or no voice” (Smith, 1996, 2000, p. 4). This is because, with a focus on getting the students to reach the final objective, they are told how they must learn which leads to them not getting the opportunity to truly engage in their own experiences in education. This limits the ability of all students to learn in ways that best suit them, meaning that it might benefit those who learn best under the given circumstances but those who require a different way of learning will have a hard time succeeding. In seeing this, it is also clear that the teachers have no say in the matter being that it takes away their influence since it is intended to be a “teacher proof” curriculum. Their freedom is taken away when it comes to their creativity of forming a classroom that they believe will most benefit the students. Another problem with this occurs when the idea of measuring learning comes into play, being that this is the center of the approach. This can become difficult because we don’t always see the results of learning immediately, especially when it comes to skills which take time to build. It can also be hard to measure the wide range of learning that can take place in a classroom under the restrictions of this model. Then comes the fact that the Tyler rationale limits the ability for both students and teachers to recognize learning that might not be a part of the set objective, making it impossible for them to see growth in other areas. They will instead only have a focus on trying to improve in ways that regard the outcomes that are expected, leaving them with seeing no importance in any other skills.

This approach can also lead to some potential benefits, making some important things possible to accomplish. There is mention that “the attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power” (Smith, 1996, 2000, p. 4). This is something I can agree with being that teachers often strive for organization in their classroom. With the general benefit of this approach being organization, it allows for clear and ordered instructions which can benefit student learning. It can also potentially be good for the students and teacher to see exactly what they will be doing since it does provide them with a focus point. There would not be any confusion in what the teacher must teach or how they must teach it with this model, meaning it makes it easy for teachers to create lesson plans. There are also possible benefits that come about with the idea of bringing change into the students behaviour since it could be for the better, potentially shifting them out of past learning habits that might not have worked for them, and instead showing them this model which could make learning easier for them. 

References:

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ The encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.