While I have many great memories of my elementary school teachers using teaching with more of process and/or praxis curricular approach, I can also recall times in which I have experienced the Tyler Rationale. This “traditionalist” way of looking at curriculum views it as a product and heavily focuses on objectives. As we learnt in class, viewing curriculum as product comes from Ralph Tyler. Tyler believed “that curriculum development can rise above context” (class slides), which directs focus onto final product. I can recall times in school in which teachers would read us the curriculum objectives and sometimes even list the objectives at the top of assignments. I remember some classes which consisted entirely of textbook reading and evaluation which is a very traditional pedagogical approach that did not take context into account.
I think that the Tyler Rationale is problematic and limiting, as it serves the people who created the curriculum. With an approach to teaching that is supposed to be “teacher-proof”, it is important to recognize who is creating this curriculum. Without a variety of different expertise, experience, and influence, these big ideas that were deemed important by people in dominant positions in our society and benefit certain groups, races, genders etc. are being delivered straight to the young minds that will shape our future. Not only is the Tyler Rationale “reinforcing the status quo”, but it also takes away from student-teacher relationships and leaves very little room for passionate teachers to build a classroom full of passionate learners – which in turn will create a future full of people who want to make the world a better, more socially-just place.
Although I disagree with the Tyler Rationale, a possible benefit to the approach could be that it is “fool proof”. Removing context and relationships comes with the idea that anyone could teach. This may be a benefit in that it could ensure that students are learning what they are ‘supposed’ to be learning even if they have a teacher who puts in limited work and care, although this statement is an oxymoron in itself.
4 Comments
Jessica Youg
Hi Mya! I can relate to experiencing many aspects of the Tyler Rationale throughout my Elementary and High School years. I remember that even though my teachers encouraged creativity, most of the assignments had expected outcomes and final products. I also agree that this traditional way of teaching was created by the more dominant groups in society, therefore the outcomes and indicators benefit only those who have similar traditions and lifestyles as those dominant figures. This results in a lack of freedom for both the teachers and the students because the teachers are to follow direct guidelines that leave each student with the same knowledge at the end of each semester, and the students are to only follow that guide which limits their creative ability. I too disagree with the Tyler Rationale approach and believe that a more inclusive and freeing curriculum will be a more beneficial form of Education.
Kelsey Gartner
Hey Mya,
I loved your insights on the Tyler rationale as it provided me with an understanding of different points of view on this topic. I enjoyed the part where you discussed and expanded on how the Tyler rationale was considered “teacher-proof” because the people in power mainly dominated and benefitted from this type of teaching. I loved reading your post and can’t wait to see what you come up with in future blogs!
Memphis Peters
I really like that you brought up the importance of student-teacher relationships! One of my biggest inspirations for wanting to become a teacher is George Feeny from the tv show Boy Meets World because of the way the teachers were able to connect with their students so well.
I can definitely see how it could be beneficial to have a curriculum that would be easy for anybody to teach. It would allow people who have less higher education to be able to do something they may not be able to do otherwise. However, I would have to say that it is something that could cause issues in classrooms as well. If anybody could teach, people may not be as passionate about it anymore. Especially for future teachers who are going to school because they want to be someone students can look up to and learn from. To know that their education wasn’t necessary would be a bit of a hit to the heart (at least for me it would be). As you mentioned in your second paragraph, this rationale is extremely limiting to everyone except the creators of the curriculum and that is something that needs to be realized and examined more critically.
Jarhico Kenyon
I like what you say and have had similar experiences with my educators in the past. Specifically with your example of presenting the expected outcomes at the beginning of an assignment. That is a great example of the product approach to education taking place within a classroom that I feel is often universal. Not only just presenting outcomes to students but the Saskcurriculum itself is an example of the product approach and therefore, it is clear that the Saskatchewan education system supports this model. Reflecting on myself, I can definitely say I have personally benefitted from this model in my past as a student.