Week 2: Curriculum Theory

Curriculum development from a traditionalist perspective is widely used across schools in Canada and other countries. Think about (a) The ways in which you may have experienced the Tyler rationale in your own schooling; (b) What are the major limitations of the Tyler rationale/what does it make impossible; and (c) What are some potential benefits/what is made possible.

The Tyler rationale as discussed in the Curriculum Theory Practice article can be broken down in these four steps: “diagnosis of need, formulation of objectives, selection of content, organization of content, selection of learning experiences, organization of learning experiences, determination of what to evaluate and the ways and means of doing it” (p. 4). The benefits to the Tyler rational are that it is very clear. There is a learning goal that is the overall end target, specific outcomes to help teachers/students met that end goal and specific ways to best evaluate. This rational makes is easy to see what needs to be done or achieved as it should be clear to the student what is expected. A negative aspect of the Tyler rational is that it “takes away from learners” (p.4). Being that in this rational, curriculum is specific and broken down with target goals and outcomes, there is little wiggle room. Students are told what, when and how they must learn these specific topics. As we know, all students learn differently, having a ‘one size fits all’ curriculum all the time will only benefit students who learn that specific way. Also, by not incorporating students interests or taking into consideration students diverse backgrounds and incorporating these needs into our curriculum/lessons can hinder students outcomes as well.

Personally, I had a lot of experience with a curriculum similar to the Tyler rational in high school. During high school I had a lot of medical issues and ended up moving to an alternative school in order to be able to succeed within my extenuating circumstances. The school that I attended was module based, so the classes had been evaluated, condensed and broken down into lessons. These lessons would equal out to about a week of what a ‘normal’ class would get through, without all the ‘fluff’, meaning there were no side conversations, group discussions, large projects, field trips, or deviation from the curriculum at all. We worked on these classes by ourselves and when/if we needed help there were teachers within the school that specified in each course. Because these classes were broken down, fluff cut out and we were working alone, we were able to finish high school courses much faster than normal. For example, I finished my grade twelve Christian Ethics class in two weeks and both my grade 12 English classes in about a month each.

While this was beneficial for my situation, being that I would miss large amounts of class at time and my health was not stable, I missed out on learning a lot from a less strict or more inquiry based curriculum. All that was learned was what was written up in those lessons, no outside opinions unless you sought them out. You don’t think about how much learn during those side conversations or connections that people with in the classroom that may not specifically be laid out in the curriculum (hidden curriculum). While I learned what was required from the curriculum, I believe I would have learned a lot more in a typical classroom where the curriculum is not as set in stone with its approach.