The Tyler Rationale: Is tradition holding education back?

The Tyler Rationale: Is tradition holding education back?

In the reading for this week, The Social Efficiency Ideology by Michael Schiro, the Tyler Rationale on the development of curriculum was discussed. The Tyler rationale is probably very familiar, but you may not realize it is. Learning objectives, evaluations, separation into grades, and standardized tests. These are a few developments that have come out of the Tyler Rationale. In the lecture, we learned that Ralph Tyler was a behavioural psychologist. He was also considered the “father of assessment and evaluation.”

 

The Tyler Rationale was a very influential part of my elementary education and it continued into my secondary school time as well. Provincial Achievement Tests (PAT’s) were a part of my education in grades 3, 6, and 9. PAT’s were taken by students every three years starting in grade 3. These tests were to see where the province was in terms of academic achievement. This concept most likely came indirectly from the ideas that Tyler had on what education should lead to. An example from my past education was when there were attempts at changing the grading of students. Instead of using percentages or letter grades like A, B, C where new letter grades that were used like E for excellent and P for proficient and L for lacking. The school was attempting to be less like the classic way of education and evaluating. They wanted to be more inclusive of all students and their academic levels. Coming back to common sense, many parents (mine included) were resistant to this change because it was different than the way it had always been done. “We had normal grading systems when I was in school,” “this is so weird,” “what does that even mean,” my parents would say to me when I should them my E on my math homework. Commonsense is going to be a hard wall to break through when trying to change the ways of educating and evaluating future students.

 

There are some major limitations in the Tyler Rationale. For example, the idea that all students are to be cut into uniform cookie cutter people is limiting on the potential for diversity. There is no room for creativity to grow and diversity to be explored. With this rationale young people are to be just like every other adult. This leads to students feeling as though they don’t belong or that they are not “what they are supposed to be.” People of minorities such as race, gender and sexuality could be impacted greatly by this concept. Tyler is trying to fit everyone into a box, but what if someone doesn’t if nicely and neatly into that box? They are likely to feel as though they are excluded and they are othered by society. Making the “perfect adult” is not the goal of educators. The goal, is rather, to give young people tools to help them through their adult lives which are specialized to each different individual. Some tools may apply to wide ranges of aspects of adult life while others are very much individual for the type of job, family structure, or life a student wants to live.

 

Tyler’s Rationale isn’t completely ineffective. His four questions for creating a curriculum are extremely helpful in the creation process. For example, his first question, which is noted in the reading, “What educational purposes should the school seek to attain” is a valid process in finding experiences and knowledge that students would benefit from knowing. In order to know what knowledge should be taught there needs to be somewhere to start or a baseline. In general, the four questions are very useful in finding the type of education and knowledge young people should be practising before coming into society. The idea that all young people should become the same type of adult is the ineffective aspect of this rationale.

 

Tyler’s thoughts and ideas about curriculum have been around for a long time, but does the sense of tradition make his ideas still valid and effective in this time period? Are there other ways to achieve what he set out to achieve? Would there be a need to completely recreate the system of curriculum or could there be a hybrid created of Tyler’s Rationale and a new system?

Featured Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash.

Jessica Wiedemann

Jessica is a student at University of Regina. Her passion for helping others and advocacy for the prevention of bullying in schools has lead her to a career in education. She is a dog lover, photographer, and a food lover.

Make sure to comment below and follow her on social media, she loves to reach out and connect with you!

Cognitive Development

Cognitive Development

3… 2… 1… GO!

In chapter 2 of our textbook, Educational Psychology by Woolfolk, Winne and Perry, the main focus is cognitive development and two theories by two psychologists, Piaget and Vygotsky, are explained. In reading this chapter I learned three things about cognitive development and the way students learn at different times in their lives. I made two connections in reading this chapter; one to something I had learned before and one to the style of learning I had experienced in elementary school and junior high school.

I learned in Piaget’s theory why adolescents are so self-conscious about what others think and believe everyone is watching. Woolfolk, Winne and Perry explain that in early adolescence between the ages of 14 and 15, there is a constant worry about their peers seeing them make a mistake or wearing the same outfit as last week. This is due to the concept of adolescent egocentrism and imaginary audience. With these concepts in mind, it is easier to understand why a simple mistake or getting an answer wrong in from of their peers in class can have such a deep impact on their self-image and psyche (p.44-45).

The second thing I learned in Vygotsky’s theory that social interactions can be important in learning. Woolfolk, Winne and Perry describe Vygotsky’s theory of the co-construction of knowledge between a teacher and the learner, where a teacher is another individual who has more knowledge on the subject being learned. After the interaction between the teacher and the leaner the learner internalizes the experience and the knowledge gain. This process of learning is more focused on social interactions between individuals rather than Piaget’s concept of stages of development (p. 50).

The last thing I learned was the role of the teacher to be scaffolding for the student. In the last pages of the chapter, Woolfolk, Winne and Perry clarify Vygotsky’s theory of teachers being the “scaffolding” for students’ learning. Learning is not a solitary experience for the child or learner. The teacher is there to hold up the student and give them support in the learning process while the student firms up their learning of a subject. Vygotsky thought the student cannot go through learning by themselves and teachers are there to be a guide when learning (p. 58).

When reading this chapter I was able to relate the content back to an experience I had at a youth camp called EagleU. There was a heavy emphasis on mentorship in this program. To be mentored is to learn from someone else’s experience and draw from their knowledge. This learning relationship is the same as the one described by Woolfolk, Winne and Perry in this chapter, Vygotsky’s “co-construction” of knowledge between two people (p. 50).

Another connection I was able to make while reading this chapter is the concept of putting students into groups so they could collaborate and share knowledge. I remember being put into table groups in elementary school and knowing now that my teachers could have been trying to implement Vygotsky’s methods and learning theories is exciting. Looking back I feel as though I learned better from my classmates in these social situations that were created. I learned the formal curriculum of content for school as well as an informal curriculum of how to interact with others from my peers.

Vygotsky’s and Piaget’s theories have worth in explaining potential learning processes but there is still lots to question in both of their ideas. For example, “could these two theories work together and play off one another to create a combined theory of learning?”

Woolfolk, A. H., Winne, P. H., & Perry N. (2013). Educational Psychology (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Featured Photo by Samuel Zeller on Unsplash.

Jessica Wiedemann

Jessica is a student at University of Regina. Her passion for helping others and advocacy for the prevention of bullying in schools has lead her to a career in education. She is a dog lover, photographer, and a food lover.

Make sure to comment below and follow her on social media, she loves to reach out and connect with you!