Understanding the Tyler rationale: Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction in historical context

Abstract

This historical study attempts to contribute to our understanding of the widely recognized and widely critiqued Tyler rationale for the development of curriculum and instruction by explaining it in the historical context in which Ralph Tyler developed it, by tracing its origins in Tyler's work, and by reconstructing a history of the course, Education 360, Tyler taught at the University of Chicago. This analysis found that Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, which emerged from Tyler's field work with teachers and professors and his conception of evaluation, is best understood as a study guide that Tyler prepared for the use of his students in the course by that name that he taught during the 1940s and 1950s. This analysis found that Tyler's rationale was remarkable in its time for its embrace of three curriculum sources, its conception of education essentially as experience, its approach to assessment as evaluation rather than as measurement, its approach to curriculum development as a problem-solving process, and its commitment to teacher participation in the development of curriculum and instruction.

A proposed model of cognitive approach to assess clinical performance of dental students

“…It may further benefit clinical reasoning as that experts possess more stringent decisions than early career assessors [11,13]. In the light of behavioral learning perspective theory, expertise is guided by disciplines' specific knowledge and skills [14], which in turn affect internal assessors' attitudes, emotions, intentions, and personalities [4,6]. These also reflect 'gut feeling' of expert assessors to defend uncertainty against students' performance and reaching consistency of decisions [7].…”

Objectives Driven Participatory Evaluation Model

“…Using course learning objectives, Tyler evaluated the undergraduate biology courses. (Tyler 1931;Wraga, 2017). The discrepancy between what the student ought to have learned and what the student demonstrated as learned provided an evaluation of the course curriculum.…”

“…The role of the evaluator in objectives-oriented evaluation models focuses on working with subject matter experts, program directors, or other program stakeholders to define the standards or objectives the program is designed to achieve and developing the means to compare them with the actual program outcomes (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2011;Madaus, Scriven, & Stufflebeam, 1983;Wraga, 2017;Madaus & Stufflebeam, 1989). The evaluator is not establishing the objectives or the standards of the program or judging any discrepancy resulting from the evaluation.…”

Eylem araştırması aracılığıyla program geliştirme: Uygulayıcılar için bir model önerisi

“…Nonetheless, no one point of view or approach is described as the re-conceptualist stance in the literature. Instead of criticizing Tyler's curriculum development model, some educators (Hlebowitsh, 1999(Hlebowitsh, , 2005Hunkins & Hammill, 1994;Wraga, 2017) also argued that he acted according to his time's paradigm appropriately. According to them, if we want to go beyond Tyler's model, we must first be aware of and appreciate his contribution to the curriculum field.…”

“…Diğer taraftan, alanyazında yeniden kavramsallaştırmacı bir duruş olarak nitelendirilebilecek tek bir görüş veya yaklaşım yoktur. Ayrıca, Tyler'ın program geliştirme modelini eleştirmek yerine, bazı eğitimciler (Hlebowitsh, 1999(Hlebowitsh, , 2005Hunkins & Hammill, 1994;Wraga, 2017) onun aslında kendi zamanının mevcut paradigmasına göre uygun davrandığını vurgulamıştır. Onlara göre, eğer Tyler'ın ortaya koyduğu modelin ötesine geçmek istiyorsak, öncelikle onun eğitim programı alanına sunduğu katkının farkında olmamız ve bu katkısı için de ona minnettar olmamız gerekmektedir.…”