Author: Johnna Hertlein (Page 2 of 2)

The reading Curriculum Theory and Practice by Smith (www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm) outlines many approaches to curriculum and curriculum development. One of these approaches to curriculum was developed by Ralph Tyler who provided a scientific model of curriculum that is focused on the product of teaching. Tyler poses four fundamental questions that outline the simplicity and effectiveness that curriculum could have:

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?

One of the major goals of the Tyler Rationale is to create a system that can be applied to multiple subject areas through behavioural objectives. 

After learning about the Tyler Rationale, I realized that this is definitely something that I have experienced in my own schooling. Teachers were very focused on getting through the entire curriculum without giving much thought to the students who weren’t quite attaining the outcome goals. In elementary school, often as the end of the school year was approaching, it would be easy to overhear them discussing how far behind they were and that they may have to cut out the ‘less important’ subjects to make sure the core subject curriculum goals were met. In highschool I realized that a lot of my schooling was based around the Tyler Rationale. In Grade 12, my Math, Chemistry, and Physics classes were all dependent on writing the departmental exam at the end of the semester. This put the entire focus of these classes on the teacher, quickly teaching each outcome while also hitting each indicator to ensure we had “all” the knowledge necessary to excel on the exam. Unfortunately, for most of my peers this led to them falling behind in the class and not learning enough to do well on the departmental. There was little to no consideration for those that fell behind because the students who were able to stay on pace with the teacher would then “suffer” as there wouldn’t be time to learn all the outcomes if more time was spent on an ‘old’ topic. 

I think that my highschool experience is a great example of one of the limitations that the Tyler Rationale presents to students. The plan (curriculum) assumes the greatest importance in the classroom which can cause some issues for the students. The plan gives little to no time for students that are struggling to receive the additional instruction time that is necessary for their success.  When a student falls behind, it is ‘their own fault’ rather than faults with the expectations. Smith elaborates by saying “If the plan is tightly adhered to, there can only be limited opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions that occur”. Additionally, the curriculum or plan is created “prior to and outside learning experiences” which again takes the focus away from the students. Students are told what they must learn, and then they must learn it. Smith then states “when all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something”; however, just because an item box is checked does it really mean they have learned that topic?

There are some positives when it comes to the Tyler Rationale. Since it is an objectives driven model, there is a clear and set outline for teachers in specific areas to teach to their students. It creates organization in our school systems giving teachers the direction that is necessary for teachers to have similar educational goals for students. I believe that the organization that this model gives is beneficial for the students when it isn’t also being used as the limiting factor in the classroom.

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

Kumashiro (2009) begins this section of Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice by describing the differences he experienced while living and teaching in Nepal compared to the Western World experiences. With this explanation from Kumashiro (2009), it is very clear that part of his definition of common-sense is that it is dependent on environment or culture. ‘Common-sense’ is not universally designed, but it is based around traditional ways of knowing and acting.

Additionally, Kumashiro (2009) explains that “common sense is not what should shape educational reform or curriculum design; it is what needs to be examined and challenged.”. This is one of the important reasons to pay attention to the common-sense items around us. There are many things we do or say in a school setting that aren’t necessarily inclusive due to our traditional sense. For example, oftentimes when a teacher requires help moving something considered heavy, they will ask the class “I’ll need some strong boys to come help me move these chairs”. What is this common-sense statement teaching our students? One thing that this obviously points out is a view that girls are not as strong as boys. Additionally, it can also provide this view that boys need a ‘break’ from their studies because they are active and louder while girls tend to be quieter and don’t need a break from the classroom setting. With this example, I’m hoping that it points out the fact that by paying attention to the common-sense sayings or actions in the classroom, we can make progress in creating an anti-oppressive classroom. As Kumashiro (2009) explains, “schools are always and already addressing oppression, often by reinforcing it or at least allowing it to continue playing out unchallenged, and often without realizing that they are doing so”. By being aware of these common-sense items, we can then begin improving the quality and experiences of students that are typically harmed by ‘common-sense’ in our schools. It is much easier to criticize ‘common-sense’ from a different location in the world, and to begin raising concerns because it doesn’t align with our own idea of what ‘common-sense’ should consist of. By critically examining our own ‘common-sense’ understandings, we can begin raising questions about whether they are useful, effective, or even have a purpose.

I believe that most of my educational experience from Kindergarten to Grade 12 was based around ‘common-sense’ ideas surrounding curriculum and pedagogy. In almost every class, it was taught as the traditional teacher at the front of the classroom lecturing about a topic from the curriculum while students wrote notes. After the designated unit was taught in this way, we were then expected to write a test or do an assignment that would help us demonstrate our knowledge. Although this pedagogy seems like ‘common-sense’, there is so much research to support that this is not the most effective way of teaching student’s information. Furthermore, the curriculum is what has been determined by the government and is what is required to be taught. As Kumashiro (2009) states, “curriculum has ‘traditionally’ consisted of these things. We do not often need to be told that teachers should teach in these ways and not those ways”. Curriculum is a ‘common-sense’ item that is quite set in stone as an expectation to be considered a professional and successful teacher.

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