Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Ralph Tyler graduated from the University of Chicago with a Ph.D in 1927. He would later go
on to serve in a prominent position as Director of Research for the Evaluation of Staff. It was
during this time that Tyler started formulating his ideas that successful teaching and learning
could be attained via the scientific method. As Madarus & Kellaghan (1992) note:
The idea that educational outcomes need to be defined in terms of identifiable behavior and
in operational terms was the keynote of Tylers Eight-Year Study initiative. Tylers
Rationale is depicted by a triangle, at the apex of which are the objectives that lead to the
development of learning experiences, which in turn lead to evaluation of the extent to which
objectives were realized (p. 121).
It was as a result of this Eight-Year Study that the birth of behavioral objectives came to
be. Because of Tylers preferred method of study (scientific method), he would be the initial
impetus behind a study based on behavioural objectives and their link to the idea of an
evaluation. Under this study hundreds of test were designed and refined in order to evaluate
students progress in achieving stated educational objectives. In volume III of the (5) volume
series entitled Appraising and Recording Student Progress, Tyler (1942) discusses the devices
Any device which provides valid evidence regarding the progress of students towards
educational objectives is appropriate The selection of evaluation techniques should be
made in terms of the appropriateness of that technique for the kind of behavior to be
appraised (p. 114).
This was an innovative step that would re-shape the way we would look at curriculum
(Kliebard, 1986).
An additional plus that resulted from the Eight-Year Study was the highlight of the
progressive agenda and the progressive school model. It would be well over a decade later
before Tylers magnum opus The Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction was published.
Many in the field of curriculum have considered it to be the bible of curriculum making and an
influential text within the field of curriculum theory (Jackson, 1992). It was initially created as a
Tyler (1949) notes: attempts to explain a rationale for viewing, analyzing, and
interpreting the curriculum and instructional program of an educational institution (p. 1). At
another point Tyler (1949) says: outlines one way of viewing an instructional program as a
functioning instrument of education (p. 1). With the publication of this work Tyler was in
essence expanding on concepts he had begun to formulate during the Eight-Year Study by
calling and establishing the more administrative aspects of the curriculum. In this study Tyler
(1) Defining appropriate learning objectives. Exactly what educational purposes should the
(2) Establish useful learning experiences. What educational experiences can be provided that
(3) Organizing learning experiences to have a maximum effect. How can these educational
(4) Evaluating the curriculum and revising those aspects that do not prove to be effective.
How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained (Tyler, 1949: Quoted in
Tyler extended and refined Bobbitts view by moving beyond Bobbitts two-step model of
(1) defining educational objectives and (2) devising learning experiences. Tyler added two
additional steps, one involving the organization of learning experiences and the other
requiring their evaluation.
Tyler further refined the first step of formulating objectives by including the development of
a school philosophy and for examination of psychological studies... (p. 34).
(1992) notes: most notable among the [rhetorical] qualities is the strong appeal to common
sense (p. 27). What makes an additional appeal to distinction between Tyler and Bobbitts
theories on curriculum is that instead of just focusing solely on objectives and goals the teacher
or curriculust orientates to the scientific method. Through these four principles, Tyler is
Under his method, when developing the curriculum, hypothesis should be established in
direct relation to the expected learning outcomes for the students. As the curriculum is
transformed into action, the teacher himself becomes a scientist. They do so in order to observe
and determine whether or not their curricular hypothesis is in fact demonstrated by the student
via the method of evaluation. As a result once the evaluation has been conducted teachers are
better able to make adjustments so to ensure proper outcomes in the classroom. Therefore,
students are now seen as the object of study rather than a participant in creating the curriculum.
It was for this very reason that Tyler was made popular by the slogan The Tyler
Rationale. The Tyler Rationale was not just a more powerful evaluation tool, it was now an
pedagogical objectives of the classroom teacher. He felt that a schools curriculum should be
responsive to three central factors that constituted the students educational experience. These
(1) The nature of the learners (developmental factors, learner interacts and needs, life
experiences, etc.); (2) the values and aims of society (democratizing principles, values and
attitudes); (3) knowledge of subject matter (what is believed to be worthy and usable knowledge)
(p. 89).
As a result of synergistically linking up his four principles with these three central tenants
Tyler was able to present a more readable, organized, and systematic discussion of issues related
to the development of goals and objectives and the selection and organization of the learning
experience. As Jackson (1992) alluded to earlier, by adding the fourth area of evaluation and
tying it to other steps in the process, he was able to complete the basic steps in planning which to
this very day are routinely included in modern curriculum planning. Tylers work had a lasting
influence on the practice of curriculum from pre-k to secondary higher education. His theories
on curriculum have had a lasting application in the classroom and institutions of higher learning
Strickland (1986) attributes his influence to: (1) acceptance of the idea that objectives
should be clearly stated and should in turn refer to expected outcomes in student behavior. (2)
that these very objectives themselves should transcend knowledge of the subject matter and
include such attributes as skills, attitudes, etc... (p. 89). Its obvious that Tyler was a titan in the
field of curriculum building and his theories according to Strickland have been influential in
serve to form the foundation for evaluating a program. (4) that evaluation of any curriculum is
fundamental to any aspect of the planning process (p. 89). Strickland (1986) goes on to point
that by evaluating a school or programs curriculum one could in essence discover strengths or
weaknesses inherent in the existing practice of the institution in question. All of these influential
impacts point to the fact that his ideas and policies are functioning and being practiced in todays
primarily be done at the local level and not at the state or national level. This is so that local
needs can be met first antecedent to state or national concerns over curriculum design. His
emphasis on the evaluation process is ultimately the driving engine behind his theories on
curriculum. In Tylers view, the evaluation process is an ongoing process that should be able to
link the efforts by educators in regards to the curriculum and instruction to that of learning
(Strickland, 1986). Tyler thought that in regards to this evaluation process more than one
instrument could be used when evaluating the students performance in the classroom.
He also felt that the instruments themselves could be modified or changed into different
instruments and not just your average standardized test that many were accustomed to at that
time. For Tyler, evaluation wasnt just about measuring a student or teachers success or failure
in the classroom, it was the integral process or the driving force behind the idea of alignment in
the classroom. In 1954 Tyler would go on to become the founding director of a Ford
Foundation-sponsored think tank called The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
after having founded the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of
Chicago several years earlier. In 1952 he advised U.S. President Harry Truman on curriculum
reformation for the service academies and served under President Dwight Eisenhower as
chairman of the Presidents Conference on Children and Youth. Under President Lyndon B.
Johnsons administration, Tyler welded his influence to help shape future education bills with a
In this bill Tyler was given the responsibility of writing the section on the development
of the regional educational research laboratories. While at the Advanced Center for Behavioral
Science at Stanford, Tyler utilized his educational expertise to push his ideas on curriculum even
further by creating a team of social scientists that he had helped fund with the aid of private
money.
The center earned a name for producing a highly selective fellowship program that would
go on to have a significant impact on educational policy over the ensuing decades. Tyler would
also be responsible for forming an assessment now known as the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). He also served on the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD). During this time, he was instrumental in publishing the
institutions guide on Fundamental Curriculum Decisions in 1983. His policy formation and
legislative influence are still felt in our school systems to this very day.
Although Tylers influence on the curriculum field is evident in every school district across
America, there were critics who have found systemic problems with regards to his ideas
disagreement with the idea of selecting behavioural objectives prior to developing the
curriculum. For others, Tylers Rationale (curriculum design based on evaluation and
behavioural objectives) has seemed to grip the educational field in the form of a dogma that few
There are few who questioned his ideas concerning curriculum design due to his large
foot print in the field of curriculum & instruction. It is estimated that during his lifetime Tyler
published over seven hundred articles and at last count sixteen books. Controversy surrounding
Tylers work on curriculum theory has been slow in gathering momentum. Scholars like
Kliebard (1970) admit that Tylers Rationale has been raised almost to the status of a revered
doctrine (p. 259). He goes on to further state, Ralph Tyler deserves to be enshrined in whatever
hall of fame the field of curriculum may wish to establish (p. 270).
Whats important about Kliebards criticism of Tylers work on curriculum is that there is
not just one universal model of how curriculum should be designed, as this is in large part how
he felt the field of curriculum theory had developed to that point in time. Kliebard (1970) notes
Ralph Tylers version of how a curriculum should be developed not the universal model of
curriculum development (p. 270). What Kliebard found worth noting was that Tyler in his
preoccupation with his curriculum design, failed to provide any kind of boundaries in deciding
Kliebard (1970) writes the Rationale offers little by way of a guide from curriculum-
making because it excludes so little (p. 267). There were other movements in the field of
curriculum ideas or thought modelling. (Pinar, 1975) writes that even though Tylers Rationale
and his ideas on the foundations for curriculum theory were sound, there was still room for
improvement. This improvement was to be in the form of a more creative thought process as
Hlebowitsh notes that these very same reconceptualists are in essence arguing against a
curriculum that they feel is undermined by Tylers Rationale itself. Hlebowitsh (1992) writes
The Tyler Rationale is tyrannically behaviouristic in its quality and is logically anchored in a
line of thought that celebrates superimposing an industrial mentality upon the school of
curriculum (p. 533). Additional criticisms levelled at Tylers ideas on curriculum are his
curriculum and the idea of potentially leaving curriculum decision-making and development in
the hands of less-competent people at the local school level (McNeil, 1990).
never responded substantively to Kliebards 1970 re-appraisal nor to the radical criticism which
followed it (p. 533-34). He did note that several years after requesting a response from Tyler
himself in regards to Kliebards criticism, Hlebowitsh was able to summarize the following reply
from Tyler:
Because Tyler saw his Rationale as an outline of questions that must be considered in
developing a curriculum and because his critics framed no alternative method for studying
questions relevant to curriculum planning, Tyler declined to criticize the positions taken
against him (p. 533-34).
Other critics like Elliot Eisner have derided Tylers Rationale as a grand over
simplification of what curriculum-model building ought to be. Eisner (1994) states, What Tyler
(1950) has given the field of curriculum through his monograph is a powerful, although in my
According to Eisner the problem he sees with Tylers conception of curriculum is that its
a complex, fluid and at times halting activity (Eisner, 1994). Krisel and Bullough (2007) state
that Tylers Rationale was never really meant to create or develop a curriculum theory of what
curriculum ought to be. Instead Tyler just wished to create an outline of the kinds of questions
that should be asked by the practitioner of the institution who is actively involved in shaping the
Tylers success in having produced a canonized curriculum building method is that he did
not offer any alternative to this form of system building. His method has withstood the test of
time and managed to successfully deflect any attacks made by his critics. Yet the fact remains
that it has not shown itself to be an inferior form of building curriculum for the sole reason that
any standardized alternative system of curriculum design has ever born to fruition. To be sure
there has never been a shortage of critics regarding his design and construction of curriculum
building. Yet the fact still remains that the critics alternatives have been inauspiciously absent