Curriculum2
See attachment for instructions and materials
EnglishEnhanced Scope and Sequence
Skill: Understanding connotation
Strand Reading–vocabulary
SOL 6.4
7.4
8.4
• Copies of Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address,” available online
Lesson
1. Have students read through “The Gettysburg Address” for broad comprehension. Then,
have them reread the first paragraph carefully and identify all words with positive
connotations and all words with negative connotations. Have them list the words on a T
chart, like this:
Negative Positive
new nation
dedicated
equal
2. Have students continue with the remaining paragraphs. After paragraph two, their charts
might include the following:
Negative Positive
battlefield new nation
dedicated
equal
dedicated
Proper
3. Be sure students include repeated uses of the same word (e.g., dedicated). After
paragraph three, their charts might resemble this:
English Enhanced Scope and Sequence
Negative Positive
testing new nation
battlefield dedicated
not equal
struggled dedicated
Poor power proper
unfinished work brave
dead consecrate
(shall not)died in dedicated
vain great task
honored dead
nobly advanced
4. Once students have finished the re-reading and word analysis, have them identify the
column of words that contains greater emotion, greater meaning, and therefore greater
impact.
5. Discuss ways the use of other words (synonyms) for the words in the positive column
might have affected the impact of Lincoln’s speech (e.g., leaders for fathers or goal for
great task).
6. Have students write a summary of their reactions to the word choices Lincoln made for
this famous speech.
- Materials
Lesson
The Tyler Rationale
Author(s): Herbert M. Kliebard
Source: The School Review, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Feb., 1970), pp. 259-272
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1084240
Accessed: 22-01-2020 03:09 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1084240?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The School Review
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
The Tyler Rationale
Herbert M. Kliebard, University of Wisconsin
One of the disturbing characteristics of the curriculum field is its lack
of historical perspective. New breakthroughs are solemnly proclaimed
when in fact they represent minor modifications of early proposals,
and, conversely, anachronistic dogmas and doctrines maintain a cur-
rency and uncritical acceptance far beyond their present merit. The
most persistent theoretical formulation in the field of curriculum has
been Ralph Tyler’s syllabus for Education 360 at the University of
Chicago, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, or, as it is
widely known, the Tyler rationale.’ Tyler’s claims for his rationale
are modest, but, over time, his proposal for rationally developing a
curriculum has been raised almost to the status of revealed doctrine.
In the recent issue of the Review of Educational Research devoted
to curriculum, Goodlad, commenting on the state of the field, reports
that “as far as the major questions to be answered in developing a
curriculum are concerned, most of the authors in [the] 1960 and
1969 [curriculum issues of the Review] assume those set forth in 1950
by Ralph Tyler.” Later, he concludes with obvious disappointment,
“General theory and conceptualization in curriculum appear to have
advanced very little during the last decade.”2 Perhaps the twentieth
anniversary of the publication of the Tyler rationale is an appropri-
ate time to reexamine and reevaluate some of its central features.
Tyler’s rationale revolves around four central questions which
Tyler feels need answers if the process of curriculum development
is to proceed:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
February 1970 259
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
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 at-
tained?3
These questions may be reformulated into the familiar four-step
process by which a curriculum is developed: stating objectives, se-
lecting “experiences,” organizing “experiences,” and evaluating.4 The
Tyler rationale is essentially an elaboration and explication of these
steps. The most crucial step in this doctrine is obviously the first
since all the others proceed from and wait upon the statement of
objectives. As Tyler puts it, “If we are to study an educational pro-
gram systematically and intelligently we must first be sure as to the
educational objectives aimed at.”5
The Selection of Educational Objectives
Tyler’s section on educational objectives is a description of the
three sources of objectives: studies of learners, studies of contempo-
rary life, and suggestions from subject-matter specialists, as well as
an account of how data derived from these “sources” are to be “fil-
tered” through philosophical and psychological “screens.” The three
sources of educational objectives encapsulate several traditional doc-
trines in the curriculum field over which much ideological blood had
been spilled in the previous several decades. The doctrines proceeded
from different theoretical assumptions, and each of them had its own
spokesmen, its own adherents, and its own rhetoric. Tyler’s proposal
accepts them all, which probably accounts in part for its wide popu-
larity.
While we are aware that compromise is the recourse frequently
taken in the fields of diplomatic or labor negotiation, simple eclecti-
cism may not be the most efficacious way to proceed in theorizing.
When Dewey, for example, identified the fundamental factors in the
educative process as the child and the “values incarnate in the ma-
tured experience of the adult,” the psychological and the logical, his
solution was not to accept them both but “to discover a reality to
which each belongs.”6 In other words, when faced with essentially
the same problem of warring educational doctrines, Dewey’s ap-
proach is to creatively reformulate the problem; Tyler’s is to lay them
all out side by side.
260 School Review
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
Subject Matter as a Source of Objectives
Of the three “sources”-studies of the learners themselves, studies
of contemporary life, and suggestions about objectives from subject-
matter specialists-the last one seems curiously distorted and out of
place. Perhaps this is because Tyler begins the section by profoundly
misconceiving the role and function of the Committee of Ten. He
attributes to the Committee of Ten a set of objectives which, he
claims, has subsequently been followed by thousands of secondary
schools. In point of fact, the notion of objectives in the sense that
Tyler defines the term was not used and probably had not even oc-
curred to the members of the Committee of Ten. What they proposed
were not objectives, but “four programmes”: Classical, Latin-Scien-
tific, Modern Languages, and English. Under each of these rubrics is
a listing of the subjects that constitute each of the four courses of
study. This recommendation is followed by the reports of the various
individual committees on what content should be included and what
methods should be used in the various subject fields. Unless Tyler is
using the term “objective” as being synonymous with “content” (in
which case it would lose all its importance as a concept), then the
use of the term “objectives” in the context of the report of the Com-
mittee of Ten is erroneous. Probably the only sense in which the
term “objective” is applicable to the Committee of Ten report is in
connection with the broad objective of mental training to which it
subscribes.
An even more serious error follows: “It seems clear that the Com-
mittee of Ten thought it was answering the question: What should
be the elementary instruction for students who are later to carry
on much more advanced work in the field. Hence, the report in His-
tory, for example, seems to present objectives [sic] for the beginning
courses for persons who are training to be historians. Similarly the
report in Mathematics outlines objectives [sic] for the beginning
courses in the training of a mathematician.”7
As a matter of fact, one of the central questions that the Committee
of Ten considered was, “Should the subject be treated differently for
pupils who are going to college, for those who are going to a scien-
tific school, and for those, who, presumably, are going to neither?”8
The Committee decided unanimously in the negative. The subcom-
mittee on history, civil government, and political economy, for ex-
ample, reported that it was “unanimously against making such a
February 1970 261
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
distinction”9 and passed a resolution that “instruction in history and
related subjects ought to be precisely the same for pupils on their
way to college or the scientific school, as for those who expect to stop
at the end of grammar school, or at the end of the high school.”‘
Evidently, the Committee of Ten was acutely aware of the question
of a differentiated curriculum based on probable destination. It sim-
ply rejected the doctrine that makes a prediction about one’s future
status or occupation a valid basis for the curriculum in general edu-
cation. The objective of mental training, apparently, was conceived
to be of such importance as to apply to all, regardless of destination.
Tyler’s interpretation of the Committee of Ten report is more
than a trivial historical misconception. It illustrates one of his fun-
damental presuppositions about the subjects in the curriculum. Tyler
conceives of subjects as performing certain “functions.” These func-
tions may take the form of a kind of definition of the field of study
itself such as when he sees a function of science to be enabling the
student to obtain a “clearer understanding of the world as it is viewed
by the scientist and man’s relation to it, and the place of the world
in the larger universe”; or the subject may perform external func-
tions such as the contribution of science to the improvement of indi-
vidual or public health or to the conservation of natural resources.
The first sense of function is essentially a way of characterizing a
field of study; in the second sense of function, the subject field serves
as an instrument for achieving objectives drawn from Tyler’s other
two sources. Tyler’s apparent predisposition to the latter sense of
function seems to be at the heart of his misreading of the Committee
of Ten report. To Tyler, studying history or algebra (as was uni-
versally recommended by the Committee of Ten), if they are not
meeting an obvious individual or social need, is a way of fulfilling
the vocational needs of a budding historian or mathematician. Other-
wise, how can one justify the existence of mathematics qua mathe-
matics in the curriculum? As such, “suggestions from subject-matter
specialists” is really not a source in the sense that the other two are.
Subject matter is mainly one of several means by which one fulfills
individual needs such as vocational aspirations or meets social ex-
pectations.
Needs of the Learner as a Source of Objectives
The section on the “learners themselves as a source of educational
objectives,” although it is less strained and more analytical than the
262 School Review
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
one on subject matter, is nevertheless elliptical. Tyler proceeds from
the assumption that “education is a process of changing behavior
patterns of people.””1 This notion, of course, is now widely popular
in this country, but, even if one were to accept such a view, it would
be important to know the ways in which education would be differ-
ent from other means of changing behavior, such as, hypnosis, shock
treatment, brainwashing, sensitivity training, indoctrination, drug
therapy, and torture. Given such a definition, the differences be-
tween education and these other ways of changing behavior are not
obvious or simple.
Tyler proceeds from his basic definition of education to a con-
sideration of the reason for wanting to study the learner: “A study
of the learners themselves would seek to identify needed changes in
behavior patterns of the students which the educational institution
should seek to produce.”’12 There follows an extended discussion of
“needs,” how they are determined, and how they contribute to the
determination of educational objectives. The notion of needs as a
basis for curriculum development was not a new one when Tyler
used it in 1950. It had been a stable element in the curriculum liter-
ature for about three decades.13 When tied to the biological concept
of homeostasis, the term “needs” seems to have a clear-cut meaning.
Hunger, for example, may be conveniently translated into a need for
food when one has in mind a physiological state of equilibrium. Need
becomes a much trickier concept when one speaks of the “need of a
haircut” or the “need for a good spanking.” These needs involve
rather complex social norms on which good men and true may differ
sharply. Tyler astutely recognized that the concept of need has no
meaning without a set of norms, and he described the kind of study
he envisioned essentially as a two-step process: “first, finding the
present status of the students, and second, comparing this status to
acceptable norms in order to identify the gaps or needs.”14 This
formulation is virtually identical to what Bobbitt referred to as
“shortcomings” in the first book written exclusively on the curricu-
lum, published in 1918.15 The key term, in Tyler’s version, of course,
is “acceptable norms.” They are neither self-evident nor easy to for-
mulate.
One of Tyler’s illustrations of the process he advocates is a case in
point: A “discovery” is made that 60 percent of ninth-grade boys read
only comic strips. The “unimaginative” teacher, Tyler says, might
interpret this as suggesting the need for more attention to comic
February 1970 263
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
strips in the classroom; the imaginative teacher uses the data as a
justification “for setting up objectives gradually to broaden and
deepen these reading interests.”‘6 What is the acceptable norm im-
plicit in Tyler’s illustration? Apparently, it is not a statistical norm
since this could imply that the 40 percent minority of boys should
be encouraged to emulate the 60 percent majority. The norm seems
to be the simple conviction that having broader and deeper reading
interests is better than limiting oneself to the reading of comic strips.
The question is what does the 60 percent figure contribute to the
process of stating educational objectives. What difference would it
have made if the figure were 80 percent or 40 percent? The key fac-
tor seems to be the nature and strength of the teacher’s conviction as
the acceptable norm, toward which the status study contributes very
little.
The whole notion of need has no meaning without an established
norm, and, therefore, it is impossible even to identify “needs” with-
out it. As Archambault put it, “An objective need can be discovered,
but only within a completely defined context in which the normal
level of attainment can be clarified.””7 Furthermore, even when a
genuine need is identified, the role of the school as an institution
for the remediation of that or other needs would have to be consid-
ered. Even the course that remediation should take once the need
and the responsibility have been established is an open question.
These serious value questions associated with the identification and
remediation of needs make the concept a deceptively complex one
whose advantages are more apparent than real. Komisar, for example,
has described this double use of need, “one to report deficiencies and
another to prescribe for their alleviation,” as so vague and elusive as
to constitute a “linguistic luxury.”‘”
As already mentioned, Tyler is acutely aware of the difficulties of
“deriving” educational objectives from studies of the child. His last
word on the subject in this section is to suggest to his students that
they compile some data and then try using those data as the basis for
formulating objectives. He suggests this exercise in part to illustrate
the difficulty of the process. Given the almost impossible complexity
of the procedure and the crucial but perhaps arbitrary role of the
interpreter’s value structure or “philosophy of life and of education,”
one wonders whether the concept of need deserves any place in the
process of formulating objectives. Certainly, the concept of need turns
out to be of no help in so far as avoiding central value decisions as
264 School Review
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
the basis for the selection of educational objectives, and without that
feature much of its appeal seems to disappear. As Dearden concluded
in his analysis of the term: “The concept of ‘need’ is an attractive
one in education because it seems to offer an escape from arguments
about value by means of a straightforward appeal to the facts empiri-
cally determined by the expert. But . . . it is false to suppose that
judgments of value can thus be escaped. Such judgments may be as-
sumed without any awareness that assumptions are being made, but
they are not escaped.”19
Studies of Contemporary Life as a Source of Objectives
Tyler’s section on studies of contemporary life as a source of cur-
ricular objectives follows the pattern set by the section on the learner.
His conception of the role that such studies play in determining
objectives is also similar in many respects to that of his spiritual
ancestor, Franklin Bobbitt, who stimulated the practice of activity
analysis in the curriculum field. Like Bobbitt, Tyler urges that one
“divide life” into a set of manageable categories and then proceed
to collect data of various kinds which may be fitted into these cate-
gories. One of Tyler’s illustrations is especially reminiscent of Bob-
bitt: “Students in the school obtain[ed] from their parents for several
days the problems they were having to solve that involved arithmetic.
The collection and analysis of this set of problems suggested the
arithmetic operations and the kinds of mathematical problems which
are commonly encountered by adults, and became the basis of the
arithmetic curriculum.”20
Tyler tends to be more explicitly aware than Bobbitt of the tra-
ditional criticisms that have been directed against this approach.
Bode, for example, once pointed out that “no scientific analysis
known to man can determine the desirability or the need of any-
thing.” The question of whether a community with a given burglary
rate needs a larger police force or more burglars is entirely a question
of what the community wants.21 Tyler’s implicit response to this and
other traditional criticism of this approach is to argue that in his
rationale studies of contemporary life do not constitute the sole basis
for deriving objectives, and, of course, that such studies have to be
checked against “an acceptable educational philosophy.”22 In this
sense, the contemporary life source is just as dependent on the philo-
sophical screen as is the learner source.
February 1970 265
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
The Philosophical Screen
Tyler’s treatment of the section on the learner and on contempo-
rary life as sources of educational objectives are roughly parallel. In
each case, Tyler is aware of the serious shortcomings of the source
but assumes that they can be overcome, first, by not relying exclu-
sively on any one of them-in a sense counting on his eclecticism to
blunt the criticism. And second (and probably more important), he
appeals to philosophy as the means for covering any deficiencies. This
suggests that it is philosophy after all that is the source of Tyler’s
objectives and that the stipulated three sources are mere window
dressing. It is Tyler’s use of the concept of a philosophical screen,
then, that is most crucial in understanding his rationale, at least in so
far as stating the objectives is concerned.
Even if we were to grant that people go through life with some
kind of primitive value structure spinning around in their heads, to
say that educational objectives somehow flow out of such a value
structure is to say practically nothing at all. Tyler’s proposal that
educational objectives be filtered through a philosophical screen is
not so much demonstrably false as it is trivial, almost vacuous. It
simply does not address itself in any significant sense to the question of
which objectives we leave in and which we throw out once we have
committed ourselves to the task of stating them. Filtering educational
objectives through a philosophical screen is simply another way of
saying that one is forced to make choices from among the thousands
or perhaps millions of objectives that one can draw from the sources
that Tyler cites. (The number of objectives is a function of the level
of specificity.) Bobbitt was faced with the same predicament when he
was engaged in his massive curriculum project in Los Angeles in
1921-23. Bobbitt’s solution was to seek “the common judgment of
thoughtful men and women,”23 an appeal to consensus. Tyler’s ap-
peal is to divine philosophy, but the effect is equally arbitrary as
long as we are still in the dark as to how one arrives at a philosophy
and how one engages in the screening process.
Take, for example, one of Tyler’s own illustrations of how a phi-
losophy operates: “If the school believes that its primary function is
to teach people to adjust to society it will strongly emphasize obedi-
ence to present authorities, loyalty to the present forms and tradi-
tions, skills in carrying on the present techniques of life; whereas if
it emphasizes the revolutionary function of the school it will be more
266 School Review
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
concerned with critical analysis, ability to meet new problems, in-
dependence and self-direction, freedom, and self-discipline. Again, it
is clear that the nature of the philosophy of the school can affect the
selection of educational objectives.”24 Although Tyler appears else-
where to have a personal predilection for the latter philosophy, we
really have no criterion to appeal to in making a choice. We are
urged only to make our educational objectives consistent with our
educational philosophy, and this makes the choice of objectives pre-
cisely as arbitrary as the choice of philosophy. One may, therefore,
express a philosophy that conceives of human beings as instruments
of the state and the function of the schools as programming the youth
of the nation to react in a fixed manner when appropriate stimuli
are presented. As long as we derive a set of objectives consistent with
this philosophy (and perhaps make a brief pass at the three sources),
we have developed our objectives in line with the Tyler rationale.
The point is that, given the notion of educational objectives and
the necessity of stating them explicitly and consistently with a philos-
ophy, it makes all the difference in the world what one’s guiding phi-
losophy is since that consistency can be as much a sin as a virtue. The
rationale offers little by way of a guide for curriculum making be-
cause it excludes so little. Popper’s dictum holds not only for science,
but all intellectual endeavor: “Science does not aim, primarily, at
high probabilities. It aims at high informative content, well backed
by experience. But a hypothesis may be very probable simply because
it tells us nothing or very little. A high degree of probability is there-
fore not an indication of ‘goodness’-it may be merely a symptom
of low informative content.”25 Tyler’s central hypothesis that a state-
ment of objectives derives in some manner from a philosophy, while
highly probable, tells us very little indeed.
Selection and Organization of Learning Experiences
Once the crucial first step of stating objectives is accomplished, the
rationale proceeds relentlessly through the steps of the selection and
organization of learning experiences as the means for achieving the
ends and, finally, evaluating in terms of those ends. Typically, Tyler
recognizes a crucial problem in connection with the concept of a
learning experience but passes quickly over it: The problem is how
can learning experiences be selected by a teacher or a curriculum
maker when they are defined as the interaction between a student and
February 1970 267
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
his environment. By definition, then, the learning experience is in
some part a function of the perceptions, interests, and previous ex-
perience of the student. At least this part of the learning experience
is not within the power of the teacher to select. While Tyler is ex-
plicitly aware of this, he nevertheless maintains that the teacher can
control the learning experience through the “manipulation of the
environment in such a way as to set up stimulating situations-situ-
ations that will evoke the kind of behavior desired.”26 The Pavlovian
overtones of such a solution are not discussed.
Evaluation
“The process of evaluation,” according to Tyler, “is essentially the
process of determining to what extent the educational objectives are
actually being realized by the program of curriculum and instruc-
tion.”27 In other words, the statement of objectives not only serves
as the basis for the selection and organization of learning experiences,
but the standard against which the program is assessed. To Tyler,
then, evaluation is a process by which one matches initial expecta-
tions in the form of behavioral objectives with outcomes. Such a con-
ception has a certain commonsensical appeal, and, especially when
fortified with models from industry and systems analysis, it seems
like a supremely wise and practical way to appraise the success of a
venture. Actually, curriculum evaluation as a kind of product con-
trol was set forth by Bobbitt as early as 1922,28 but product control
when applied to curriculum presents certain difficulties.
One of the difficulties lies in the nature of an aim or objective and
whether it serves as the terminus for activity in the sense that the
Tyler rationale implies. In other words, is an objective an end point
or a turning point? Dewey argued for the latter: “Ends arise and
function within action. They are not, as current theories too often
imply, things lying outside activity at which the latter is directed.
They are not ends or termini of action at all. They are terminals of
deliberation, and so turning points in activity.”29 If ends arise only
within activity it is not clear how one can state objectives before the
activity (learning experience) begins. Dewey’s position, then, has im-
portant consequences not just for Tyler’s process of evaluation but
for the rationale as a whole. It would mean, for example, that the
starting point for a model of curriculum and instruction is not the
268 School Review
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
statement of objectives but the activity (learning experience), and
whatever objectives do appear will arise within that activity as a way
of adding a new dimension to it. Under these circumstances, the
process of evaluation would not be seen as one of matching antici-
pated consequences with actual outcomes, but as one of describing
and of applying criteria of excellence to the activity itself. This view
would recognize Dewey’s claim that “even the most important among
all the consequences of an act is not necessarily its aim,”80 and it
would be consistent with Merton’s important distinction between
manifest and latent functions.31
The importance of description as a key element in the process of
evaluation has also been emphasized by Cronbach: “When evalua-
tion is carried out in the service of course improvement, the chief aim
is to ascertain what effects the course has …. This is not to inquire
merely whether the course is effective or ineffective. Outcomes of
instruction are multidimensional, and a satisfactory investigation
will map out the effects of the course along these dimensions sepa-
rately.”32 The most significant dimensions of an educational activity
or any activity may be those that are completely unplanned and
wholly unanticipated. An evaluation procedure that ignores this fact
is plainly unsatisfactory.
Summary and Conclusion
The crucial first step in the Tyler rationale on which all else
hinges is the statement of objectives. The objectives are to be drawn
from three sources: studies of the learner, studies of society, and sug-
gestions from subject-matter specialists. Data drawn from these
sources are to be filtered through philosophical and psychological
screens. Upon examination, the last of the three sources turns out to
be no source at all but a means of achieving objectives drawn from
the other two. Studies of the learner and of society depend so heavily
for their standing as sources on the philosophical screen that it is
actually the philosophical screen that determines the nature and
scope of the objectives. To say that educational objectives are drawn
from one’s philosophy, in turn, is only to say that one must make
choices about educational objectives in some way related to one’s
value structure. This is to say so little about the process of selecting
objectives as to be virtually meaningless. One wonders whether the
long-standing insistence by curriculum theorists that the first step
February 1970 269
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
in making a curriculum be the specification of objectives has any
merit whatsoever. It is even questionable whether stating objectives
at all, when they represent external goals allegedly reached through
the manipulation of learning experiences, is a fruitful way to con-
ceive of the process of curriculum planning. Certainly, the whole
concept of a learning experience requires much more analysis than
it has been given. Finally, the simplistic notion that evaluation is
a process of matching objectives with outcomes leaves much to be
desired. It ignores what may be the more significant latent outcomes
in favor of the manifest and anticipated ones, and it minimizes the
vital relationship between ends and means.
One reason for the success of the Tyler rationale is its very ration-
ality. It is an eminently reasonable framework for developing a cur-
riculum; it duly compromises between warring extremes and skirts
the pitfalls to which the doctrinaire are subject. In one sense, the
Tyler rationale is imperishable. In some form, it will always stand as
the model of curriculum development for those who conceive of the
curriculum as a complex machinery for transforming the crude raw
material that children bring with them to school into a finished and
useful product. By definition, the production model of curriculum
and instruction begins with a blueprint for how the student will turn
out once we get through with him. Tyler’s version of the model
avoids the patent absurdity of, let us say, Mager’s by drawing that
blueprint in broad outline rather than in minute detail.33
For his moderation and his wisdom as well as his impact, Ralph
Tyler deserves to be enshrined in whatever hall of fame the field of
curriculum may wish to establish. But the field of curriculum, in its
turn, must recognize the Tyler rationale for what it is: Ralph Tyler’s
version of how a curriculum should be developed-not the universal
model of curriculum development. Goodlad once claimed that
“Tyler put the capstone on one epoch of curriculum inquiry.”84 The
new epoch is long overdue.
270 School Review
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
NOTES
1. Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1950). Note differences in pagination in 1969 printing.
2. John I. Goodlad, “Curriculum: State of the Field,” Review of Educational
Research 39 (1969):374.
3. Tyler, pp. 1-2.
4. I have argued elsewhere that the characteristic mode of thought associated
with the field of curriculum frequently manifests itself in enumeration and par-
ticularization as a response to highly complex questions. Herbert M. Kliebard,
“The Curriculum Field in Retrospect,” in Technology and the Curriculum, ed.
Paul W. F. Witt (New York: Teachers College Press, 1968), pp. 69-84.
5. Tyler, p. 3.
6. John Dewey, “The Child and the Curriculum,” in John Dewey on Educa-
tion, ed. Reginald D. Archambault (New York: Random House, 1964), pp. 339-
40. (Originally published by University of Chicago Press in 1902.)
7. Tyler, p. 17.
8. National Education Association, Report of the Committee on Secondary
School Studies (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1893), p. 6.
9. Ibid, p. 203.
10. Ibid, p. 165.
11. Tyler, p. 4.
12. Ibid, pp. 4-5.
13. See, e.g., H. H. Giles, S. P. McCutchen, and A. N. Zechiel, Exploring the
Curriculum (New York: Harper &c Bros., 1942); V. T. Thayer, Caroline B. Zachry,
and Ruth Kotinsky, Reorganizing Secondary Education (New York: Appleton
Century, 1939). The former work was one of the volumes to come out of the Pro-
gressive Education Association’s Eight-Year Study. Tyler was closely associated
with that research. The latter volume was published under the auspices of the
Progressive Education Association’s Commission on Secondary School Curriculum.
Tyler was also a member of the committee that prepared the NSSE yearbook on
needs. Nelson B. Henry, ed., Adapting the Secondary School Program to the Needs
of Youth, Fifty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa-
tion, pt. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953). An early statement of
needs in relation to curriculum organization appeared in The Development of
the High-School Curriculum, Sixth Yearbook of the Department of Superinten-
dence (Washington, D.C.: Department of Superintendence, 1928). Needs as the
basis for the curriculum in English was mentioned by E. L. Miller as early as 1922.
North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Proceedings of the
Twenty-seventh Annual Meeting of the North Central Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Torch Press, 1922), p. 103.
14. Tyler, p. 6.
15. Franklin Bobbitt, The Curriculum (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1918),
p. 45 ff.
16. Tyler, p. 10.
17. Reginald D. Archambault, “The Concept of Need and Its Relation to Cer-
tain Aspects of Educational Theory,” Harvard Educational Review 27 (1957):51.
18. B. Paul Komisar, “‘Need’ and the Needs Curriculum,” in Language and
Concepts in Education, eds. B. O. Smith and Robert H. Ennis (Chicago: Rand
McNally &8 Co., 1961), p. 37.
19. R. F. Dearden, ” ‘Needs’ in Education,” British Journal of Educational
Studies 14 (1966):17.
February 1970 271
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reappraisal
20. Tyler, pp. 16-17.
21. Boyd H. Bode, Modern Educational Theories (New York: Macmillan Co.,
1927), pp. 80-81.
22. Tyler, p. 13.
23. Franklin Bobbitt, Curriculum-making in Los Angeles, Supplementary Edu-
cational Monographs no. 20 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1922), p. 7.
24. Tyler, p. 23.
25. Karl Popper, “Degree of Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy
of Science 6 (1955):146 (original italics).
26. Tyler, p. 42.
27. Ibid., p. 69.
28. Franklin Bobbitt, “The Objectives of Secondary Education,” School Re-
view 28 (1920):738-49.
29. John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct (New York: Random House,
1922), p. 223. (Originally published by Henry Holt &8 Co.)
30. Ibid., p. 227.
31. Robert K. Merton, “Manifest and Latent Functions,” in Social Theory and
Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957), pp. 19-84.
32. Lee J. Cronbach, “Evaluation for Course Improvement,” New Curricula,
ed. Robert W. Heath (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 235 (original italics).
33. Robert F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives (Palo Alto, Calif.:
Fearon Publishers, 1962).
34. John I. Goodlad, “The Development of a Conceptual System for Dealing
with Problems of Curriculum and Instruction,” U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, Office of Education Cooperative Research Project no. 454
(Los Angeles: Institute for the Development of Educational Activities, UCLA,
1966), p. 5.
272 School Review
This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:09:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
- Contents
- Issue Table of Contents
image 1
image 2
image 3
image 4
image 5
image 6
image 7
image 8
image 9
image 10
image 11
image 12
image 13
image 14
The School Review, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Feb., 1970), pp. 145-296
Front Matter
About This Issue
A Critique of the Bereiter-Engelmann Preschool Program [pp. 145-167]
Some Implications of Piaget’s Theory for Teaching Young Children [pp. 169-183]
A Model for Research on Instruction [pp. 185-200]
NEA and NCA Involvement in a School Controversy: Chicago, 1944-47 [pp. 201-227]
Comment
Choice Is Not Enough [pp. 229-239]
Choice Can Be Too Much [pp. 240-241]
Choice Is a Start [pp. 242-248]
The IQ Test: Does It Make Black Children Unequal? [pp. 249-258]
Reappraisal
The Tyler Rationale [pp. 259-272]
Book Reviews
Review: untitled [pp. 273-277]
Review: untitled [pp. 277-281]
Review: untitled [pp. 281-285]
Review: untitled [pp. 285-290]
Review: untitled [pp. 290-294]
Review: untitled [pp. 295-296]
Back Matter
Curriculum Plan Critique Instructions
The purpose of this assignment is for you to critique a curriculum plan based upon what you have learned through describing the strengths or weaknesses of the curriculum plan. You will evaluate and critique 1 curriculum using articles. The article will focus on a single topic or portion of a lesson. You will only critique that topic of the lesson through the assigned article.
In your critique, you should provide suggestions to improve the curriculum plan based upon what’s been learned in this course. This assignment must include a title page, have a 500-word limit, and adhere to current APA format. Title page and citations are NOT included in the word limit.
Please use the following curriculum plan provided by the Virginia Department of Education. (Attached)
·
Curriculum Plan:
Grade 6-8: Understanding Connotation
The paper will include the following:
a. A title page
b. First section a 225-word summary of the assigned article.
c. Second section, the critique, a 125-words comparing the article to the curriculum plan
d.
Third section, 125-words contrasting the article to the curriculum plan.
Below you will find the Critique Topic #2 and link to the corresponding article assigned. You will only need to critique the portion of the sample curriculum plan based upon the assigned topic:
· Topic: Educational Objectives
·
The Tyler Rationale
(Kliebard, 1970) (Attached)
Running head: TITLE OF PAPER 1
TITLE OF PAPER 3
Title of Paper
Author
EDUC 872 Research in Curriculum Design and Development
Title of Paper
Use this space to give a short introduction to the article and the purpose of the paper. This should be a minimum of five sentences. Make sure when you list the author’s name, you place the year of publication in parenthesis after the author’s name. You will need to follow all APA guidelines for citations. Citations should include the author’s last name, comma, and the year of publication. Example: (Smith, 2010). Citations with direct quotes should include the author’s name, comma, year of publication, comma, and the page number. Example: (Smith, 2010, p.23). You do not need the page number unless you have a direct quote from the work in the sentence.
Summary
Use this section to summarize the assigned article. This should include the main points of the article. Make sure you properly cite within this section. APA states that you must credit the source when “paraphrasing, quoting an author directly, or describing an idea that influenced your work” (p. 170). All paragraphs must be at least five sentences and this section should be between 225 words.
Compare
Use this section to analyze the comparisons between the assigned article and the provided curriculum plan. This means you will need to think critically through the main points of the article and the curriculum plan. This section should be between 125 words.
Contrast
Use this section to analyze the differences between the assigned article and the provided curriculum plan. This means you will need to think critically through the main points of the article and the curriculum plan. This section should be between 125 words
References
You will only include references that you cited within the Curriculum Plan Critiques. If you integrate a Biblical worldview by quoting from the Bible, you do not include the Bible in this section. Make sure all references utilize a hanging indent and remove any hyperlinks.