The Tyler Rationale

The article Curriculum Theory and Practice discusses a multitude of different approaches to curriculum, teaching, and learning. One of the said approaches is the Tyler rationale, which is based on four major questions :

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

The ideas behind the Tyler rationale focus on organization and precisely managed education. By understanding education systematically, we can examine and approach learning through different lenses.

I experienced the approaches outlined in the Tyler rationale in numerous different forms throughout my K-12 education. Objective-based learning was a huge part of my grade 7, 8, and 9 classes; the teacher tells the students this is what they must achieve and the students followed step-by-step to achieve the goal. In grade 9 history we were taught about the Mayan civilization, but only briefly. We were expected to take notes from PowerPoint and regurgitate the little bit of information presented on our exams, then we were evaluated based on if we met the goal of “learning” about the Mayans. I am a history nerd, but even I found it dull and lacking in content, so my main goal was to memorize what was said and be able to reiterate what I heard. The idea of creating an outline of what the students should learn and then organizing the lessons to deliver that information so they can be evaluated on the said topic is the Tyler rationale.

I can recall other times when the Tyler rationale was applied to my education. Learning writing techniques such as cursive, which I never used outside of the classroom, or multiplication on those timed sheets of 100 simple equations. The repetition and monotony of these lessons helped drill these concepts into my brain, and the evaluations were to prove that the repetition worked. I find that some of these worked very well, personally. I do not remember how to write in cursive, but I can multiply and single digit numbers in my head without really thinking about it. But does this prove that I learned these things, or is it just by memorization? I know that 5×9=45, but I can’t easily break it down for a 7-year-old to understand. The Tyler rationale is useful and beneficial to students and teachers in many ways but is also limited.

Using this approach, educators can clearly determine the outcomes they are expected to present to students. The ideas and concepts are laid out in an organized matter that guides the lessons. For example, I, as a future history teacher, am expected to teach students about World War Two. I will be expected to educate the students on specific matters of the event, and once the course material has been covered I will assess what the students have learned. The lesson planning is simplified by the Tyler rationale; I know what I am supposed to teach and what I am supposed to evaluate the students on. The Tyler rationale also provides benefits to the students learning; they will learn only the most important information pertaining to the course that will expand their knowledge/skills and assist in their future endeavours. Prioritizing the student’s skills and knowledge keeps them engaged by offering useful information for their future and for life outside of school.

Although the Tyler rationale offers strong benefits to students and teachers, it does have limitations. One of the greatest setbacks of the Tyler rationale is the lack of input. The choice is eliminated from the teaching and learning process, impacting teaching and learning styles. The approach of “student must learn by these tight guidelines” restricts the educator’s abilities to express their teaching style and actively engage with the course material and students. Teachers become robots in this approach; they follow the instructions on how to educate the students rather than learning from the students and adapting to best suit the needs of the classroom. This also impedes the learning capabilities of students. The students are told “this is what you will learn and how you will do it,” which disconnects students from the lessons. Students are also not offered alternative options to fit their learning needs. Many students struggle to learn by simply listening to a teacher talk or write. The separation of choice creates a division between the learners and educators; students want to learn their own ways, and educators want to teach in their own styles. Limiting these choices removes creativity from the classroom and makes the students into knowledge sponges, but at a point, they will stop retaining the information and begin losing interest.

The Tyler rationale has many ups and downs. It can benefit teachers who are interested in conveying the message and lesson each day but limits the freedoms of creative and expressive teachers. It also benefits students who learn visually or by hearing, reading, and writing. Students who learn physically by actively interacting and engaging with concepts and course material are not included in this learning style and will fall behind. The teacher-student interactions I remember and enjoyed growing up are no longer existent, as the barrier of what should be learned divides what both sides can benefit from most: human interaction. Teachers are not robots, students are not knowledge sponges; we are all human beings and must treat learning as such.