Today’s blog is about Tyler’s rationale and its use in the classroom. Being aware of and critiquing practices and processes of daily life is vital to growth, and classroom teaching is no exception to that rule. To be more particular, what are the benefits of Tyler’s rationale, and what are the limitations?
To start off, Tyler’s rationale was apparent in my schooling. Every class followed the same ideas — much like Tyler’s rationale — of stating what is to be learned, giving the background knowledge, giving the class examples and practice, and finally, testing the new knowledge (Tyler, 1949, as cited in Smith, 1996/2000). The best example would be in math class. My teacher would start the lesson on a topic, then explain the new formula, show examples, and give a practice assignment before a quiz. Currently, I experience it in my history class about the unification of Italy. My professor starts the class by having a focus, starting broad and giving many examples of similar events so students understand the key points. The professor then asks questions to see if students can make the desired connections and thoughts. Additionally, it is shown every time a teacher shows a syllabus in a sense. I believe all schools are like this, and so is each grade or class, almost like a cake of knowledge, each objective stacking until you graduate. Looking back, I find my experiences were enhanced by Tyler’s rationale when I took part in physics and chemistry. I cannot say the same for English class unless the topics were sentence syntax or figures of speech. It was pure artistic assignments that were harmed by the Tyler rationale. I believe art should be evaluated differently, and maybe, there is a better method the curriculum can use alongside Tyler’s rationale.
Now, how can the Tyler rationale be beneficial? There must be something good about it if many choose to use it, consciously or not. Smith states that “the attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power” (1996/2000). This means that teachers can follow a guide for every lesson that works, taking less thought into structuring, and making it possible for lessons to be taught to many students with ease. Another benefit to Tyler’s rationale is consistency. Having consistency gives students an idea and familiarity with how a lesson will progress. As well, Tyler’s rationale — due to its time-sensitive nature and a large number of objectives — allows for the study of many ideas in a subject, allowing insight into many aspects of fields. This makes exposure more possible, giving students a better chance at finding what they are passionate about.
A difficulty with Tyler’s Rationale is time sensitivity. Students are required to learn specific information in a limited time frame. The time sensitivity causes passionate students to halt their eagerness and causes others, who need more time, to struggle. This makes passion impossible in the classroom because of the pressures to complete the curriculum. If students cannot passionately research a subject without the research causing detriment in other classes or aspects of life, I believe the student will not do it. Additionally, if there are specified objectives from the curriculum, Tyler’s rationale leaves little room for educators to teach new discoveries that may interest students, taking away the chance for a new interest. Another issue with Tyler’s rationale is that it works, and society has seen it to be the way of teaching. Teachers will stop investigating new ways to teach subjects because Tyler’s rationale has been normalized. Since the teachers are not thinking critically about how they are teaching, this will reflect in their work for students, revealing that critical thought is not as important as practice. Moreover, Tyler’s rationale may be good for subjects like math and science, but this is difficult in classes that are more artistic. Artistic expression is harmed by requirements and objectives in the curriculum when evaluating assignments. This is the precise reason teachers need to develop new ways to mark because having the curriculum in Tyler’s fashion can be detrimental or helpful in each case. Furthermore, this model harms learning: “…pre-specified goals may lead both educators and learners to overlook learning that … is not listed as an objective” (Smith, 1996/2000). Educators do not have the time to speak about important ideas learned if it is not the aim of the course, so ideas must be left behind. The model simply makes flourishment impossible when it does not align with the topic of the course.
Tyler’s rationale has helped education by setting a foundation. There are many courses that benefit from the practice but others that do not. To develop new methods for the curriculum, educators and administrators must think about the shortcoming of Tyler’s method and look for other means to create a curriculum. Having another curriculum alongside Tyler’s rationale or standing alone will positively alter teachers, students, and society.
References
Smith, M. K. (2000). ‘Curriculum theory and practice.’ The Encyclopedia of Pedagogy and Informal Education. (Original work published 1996). www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. University of Chicago Press.
0 Comments