After reading Smith’s article about Curriculum Theory and Practice, I now see a variety of ways in which I have experienced the Tyler rationale in my own schooling. Before I give any examples, I would like to define the Tyler rationale as a method of curriculum created with objectives, organized activities, and evaluation. It is a very straightforward way to look at teaching. I remember this type of teaching in my biology class in high school. Every day we would read the textbook, answer the questions at the end of each chapter, study those questions and write exams on it. This type of learning had very little hands on and exciting activities to help us to comprehend what we were supposed to be learning. It ended up being a test at the end of each unit on how well we could memorize what we had gone through in class. Another example of the Tyler rationale in my schooling was almost every math class I took. Each class was organized in about the same way. The teacher would go through the examples in the textbook at the beginning of each unit, we were then assigned questions to complete from the textbook and were tested on these questions at the end of the unit. Everyday felt the same as the day before. I did have one math class though, that focused more on using alternative methods to help me to learn the unit. As a class, we got to play games like Blokus to help us to learn shapes and strategies but these alternative methods ended way before high school.

The Tyler rationale might be good for students who enjoy learning in a repetitive fashion but it has a variety of limitations that need to be addressed. Students are left with little to no voice about what they are learning and how to learn it. They are forced to follow how the class is organized in order to ‘pass’ the class. I put ‘pass’ in quotations because often students are not actually retaining what they are learning when the class is based upon memorization. Smith’s article mentions that this type of curriculum “can deskill educators”. This means that it turns educators into technicians that rely on a textbook to teach the class instead of their own knowledge. It puts educators in a position that forces them to limit alternative teaching methods. It makes anyone who learns in any other way than repetitive memorization struggle to learn the material and almost impossible to pass the class.

There is, however, at least one benefit to this method of teaching. Smith mentions that “teachers enter the classroom setting with a more fully worked-through idea of what is about to happen”. Teachers are given the abilities to organize their class in a way that they will never fall behind and will be able to teach all of the required material in the limited timeframe. The Tyler rationale allows for the curriculum to look a bit like a recipe. There is clear instructions on how much of each activity and how much time it needs.

Smith – Curriculum Theory and Practice

Kumashiro defines common sense as what belongs or is the social norms of a certain area. Common sense can be shaped by environment, culture, and more specifically, the curriculum and pedagogy in schools. An important thing to note about common sense is that it is not always that common. Different groups refer to common sense in a variety of ways. In the reading, Kumashiro mentions that while he/she is in Nepal, meals are limited to twice a day whereas most Canadians eat at least three meals a day (page 29). Therefore, what is determined as common sense is dependant on location and social norms.

Now, why is common sense important? Well, it can be dangerous to assume that what is seen as common sense is always right, regardless of where one is and that anything that goes against common sense is wrong. This can lead to a counterproductive process of incorporating change into new environments. Kumashiro wanted to create a different type of learning environment in Nepal, where every class was less based on memorization and note taking and more based on student interaction (page 30). Kumashiro’s attempts to teach differently did not make sense to the students and faculty in Nepal (page 31). He/She goes on to record that the Peace Corps were similarly trying to change how teaching was generally experienced by making it more like U.S. schools. This in of itself was not problematic but thinking that the U.S. school system was better and the right way of teaching caused common sense in Nepal to look wrong. Kumashiro writes “[c]ommon sense does not often tell us that the status quo is quite oppressive […] instead, common sense often makes it easy to continue teaching and learning in ways that allow the oppressions already in play to continue” (page 36). As a society, we need to ensure that we are not letting common sense determine what is right and wrong because ignoring common sense can cause misconceptions about differences in the way people live.

Common sense understandings of curriculum and pedagogy are exposed to anyone who has ever been in a school system. Some understandings I bring into this course are that curriculum is a guideline of what needs to be taught and that pedagogy is the different methods of how to teach those guidelines in a way every student can understand. Curriculum is the backbone for pedagogy. Pedagogy is the part of teaching that allows for creativity and keeps students engaged in the curriculum. Pedagogy could be essays, quizzes, and exams or projects, activities and group assignments. Every new learning method brought into the classroom is going to shape each student’s view of common sense in their environment.

Kumashiro. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, pp. XXIX – XLI).

Welcome to Education Sites. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!