magazinelogo

The Educational Review, USA

ISSN Online: 2575-7946 ISSN Print: 2575-7938 CODEN: TERUBB
Frequency: monthly Email: edu@hillpublisher.com
Total View: 6438302 Downloads: 1346646 Citations: 880 (From Dimensions)
OpenAlex-based citation data
  • citations

    1417
  • h-index

    13
  • i10-index

    14
ArticleOpen Access http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2024.06.009

In Defense of the Tyler Rationale: As a Model for Curriculum Development

Siyu Du

Sichuan Film and Television University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

*Corresponding author: Siyu Du

Published: June 24,2024

Abstract

This paper investigates the application and limitations of the Tyler rationale in curriculum development. Despite its widespread use, the Tyler rationale has been criticized for its theoretical logic and objectives-oriented approach’s adaptability in actual teaching scenarios. The purpose of this research is to defend the Tyler rationale as a practical approach to curriculum development and to critique the criticisms it has received. Through literature analysis and theoretical exploration, this study systematically examines the four key steps of the Tyler rationale: identifying educational objectives, selecting learning experiences, organizing learning experiences, and evaluating educational outcomes. The findings indicate that although there are challenges in setting objectives and maintaining logical rigor, the Tyler rationale’s emphasis on the sustainability of objectives and the feedback mechanism in evaluation provides crucial operational guidance for curriculum design. Additionally, the study highlights the Tyler rationale’s consideration of political and social equity, emphasizing the importance of equal educational opportunities. Overall, this research asserts that the Tyler rationale holds significant practical value in curriculum development, offering substantial benefits for students, teachers, and socio-political development.

Keywords

Tyler rationale, curriculum development, educational objectives, curriculum evaluation

References

Aktan S. Waking up to the dawn of a new era: Reconceptualization of curriculum post Covid-19 [J]. Prospects, 2021, 51(1): 205-217.

Apple M W. Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education [M]. Routledge, 2021.

Aronowitz S. Postmodern education: Politics, culture, and social criticism [M]. U of Minnesota Press, 1991.

Beane J A, Toepfer C F, Alessi S J. Curriculum planning and development [J]. (No Title), 1986.

Burns J P. The Tyler rationale: A reappraisal and rereading [J]. Prospects, 2023: 1-15.

Chen C, Chen Y, Cheng K. A study on comparing the objective model in curriculum planning between Taiwan and America [J]. 1996.

Coşkun Yaşar G, Aslan B. Curriculum theory: A review study [J]. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies (IJOCIS), 2021, 11(2).

Dhanapala, R. M. (2021). Triangular framework for curriculum development in the education sector.

Dillon J T. The questions of curriculum [J]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2009, 41(3): 343-359.

Eisner E W. Instructional and expressive educational objectives: Their formulation and use in curriculum. 1967.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED028838.

Giroux H A. Teachers, public life, and curriculum reform [J]. Peabody Journal of Education, 1994, 69(3): 35-47.

Hersh R H, Cohen S J. A Case against a case against behavioral objectives [J]. The Elementary School Journal, 1971, 71(8): 430-437.

Hlebowitsh P S. Interpretations of the Tyler Rationale: A reply to Kliebard [J]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1995, 27(1): 89-94.

Huang J R. Ralph W. Tyler Model criticism, clarification and suggestions. Curriculum and Teaching. 2005, 8(3): 91-104. DOI: 10.6384/CIQ.200507.0091.

Hyman R T. Means-ends reasoning and the curriculum [J]. Teachers College Record, 1972, 73(3): 393-401.

Joseph O O. A review: Models of curriculum evaluation. Department of Education Foundation Faculty of Education School of Post Graduate Studies Federal University, Dutsin-Ma Katsina State, 2021.

Kliebard H M. Persistent curriculum issues in historical perspective [J]. Curriculum theorizing: The Reconceptualists, 1975: 39-50.

Ornstein A C, Hunkins F P. Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues [M]. Pearson Higher Ed, 2017.

Pinar W F, Bowers C A. Chapter 4: politics of curriculum: origins, controversies, and significance of critical perspectives [J]. Review of Research in Education, 1992, 18(1): 163-190.

Slattery P. Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. Garland Reference Library of Social Science, Volume 929. Critical Education Practice, Volume 1 [M]. Garland Publishing, 1000A Sherman Avenue, Hamden, CT 06415, 1995.

Stufflebeam, Daniel L., George F. Madaus, and Thomas Kellaghan, eds. Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Vol. 49. Springer Science & Business Media, 2000.

Tyler R W. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction [M]//Curriculum studies reader E2. Routledge, 2013: 60-68.

Vo T K A. Evaluation models in educational program: Strengths and weaknesses [J]. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 2018, 34(2).

Wraga W G. Understanding the Tyler rationale: Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction in historical contex [J]. Espacio, Tiempo y Educación, 2017, 4(2): 227-252.

Copyright

© 2024 by the author(s).
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not modified or adapted.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

How to cite this paper

In Defense of the Tyler Rationale: As a Model for Curriculum Development

How to cite this paper: Siyu Du. (2024). In Defense of the Tyler Rationale: As a Model for Curriculum Development.The Educational Review, USA8(6), 837-841.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2024.06.009