The Importance of Curriculum Models: Tyler’s Model

Abstract

Tyler’s curriculum model has been a strong inspiration for many educationists in the field of curriculum development since its publication in 1949. The influence of this model remains resilient regardless of its age, signifying the importance of the four simple questions based around Tyler model. This paper "Tyler’s Model: Importance of Curriculum Models Essay" examines Tyler’s curriculum model; particularly its advantages and disadvantages and its current relevance.

Introduction

Curriculum development is a step-by-step process guide used to impact positive enhancements in the courses offered by a school, college or university. In the ever changing world, new discoveries have to be roped into the education curricula in order to cope with the pace of the changing world. Innovative teaching techniques and strategies (such as active learning, online learning or blended learning) are constantly being developed in order to enhance the student learning experience. In order to be abreast, every institution has to have a plan in place for recognizing these shifts and then be able to implement them in the school curriculum. The primary purpose of curriculum development is to make sure that students receive integrated and appropriate learning experiences that contribute towards their cognitive, effective and psychomotor; learning, growth and development. Traditionally the task of curriculum development has proven to be neither direct nor rapid; rather, it is a highly vibrant and creative process, which integrates information from a wide range of sources. Numerous models have been developed over the last 6 decades aiming to make this complicated task more candid. Conventional curriculum theory has developed from a philosophical perspective that separates means from ends in order to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. Tyler’s curriculum model is the most common example of this and remains influential in the field of curriculum development despite its age.

Tyler’s Curriculum Model

The Tyler’s model of curriculum design is also known as Tyler’s rationale. It was developed in 1949 by Ralf Tyler, a professor at University of Chicago. It is the classic example of curriculum development in a logical approach. Tyler set a benchmark in the field of education when he published his curriculum model in his book “Basic principle of curriculum and instruction”. His curriculum model was an answer to growing apprehensions about accountability in education and has ever since dominated curriculum planning. Tyler’s model can be functional at all learning levels and areas. The objective evaluation makes it is easy to find the relevance of a course content, activities and teaching approaches. The arrangement of curriculum fundamentals is rational and the model is useful to easily forecast final results. Tyler believed that by exploring learners and their circumstances, present and future society, and the knowledge of major disciplines; we could define the ideal characteristics of future citizens. Brady and Kennedy also claimed that Tyler’s curriculum model had an enormously advanced effect as, it anticipated teacher expertise and focused attention on upgrading of the school curriculum. This highly encouraged teachers to reason and reflect upon educational goals and objectives openly.

Tyler’s model is one of the first models to be created for curriculum development and is still highly referred by educationist worldwide. It is a simple model enwrapped in four simple steps;

1. Determination of the school’s objectives.
2. Identification of the educational experiences related to objectives.
3. Organizing the experiences.
4. Evaluation of the objectives.

These steps are more popularly recognized as the four central questions of Tyler’s model;

1. What education purposes should the school seek to attain?
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 attained?

These steps can be further sub-divided into a series of smaller steps starting with the identification of objectives moving on to selection of learning activities, organization of these learning activities in an appropriate series and finally evaluating the final result in comparison to the initial objectives. Tyler stated that the identification of objectives is the first and foremost step in curriculum planning “because they are the most critical criteria for guiding all the other activities of the curriculum maker”. The following steps are in a logical sequence, the success of which is determined in the evaluation stage, where a judgment is drawn in relation to whether or not the selection and organization of course content has fulfilled the preset objectives. Beyer and Apple (1998) claimed that Tyler’s model symbolized school as a manufacturing unit where in the students are used like raw material to be processed into finished products as designed by the school. Arnold (1988) refined the model and debated that it could be more suitable if the process was cyclical; and that the evaluation stage should provide feedback for the future identification of objectives. This suggestion is a logical improvement and would considerably enhance Tyler’s model. Much recent curriculum models such as the Teaching as Inquiry model consists of a cyclical presentation.

Tyler highlighted two forms of integration within the curriculum: vertical and horizontal. Vertical integration deals with interlinking experiences of the earlier years with that of later years. This means that the knowledge and skills acquired by students in preceding years should be consciously used and extended in the attainment of knowledge in the following years. On the other hand, horizontal integration deals with the conscious linking of course content from one subject to another. This approach tries to break down the invisible segregation of knowledge between subjects and helps students study a common theme across multiple subject domains simultaneously. Central concentration of Tyler’s model is the effective organization of the learning activities. Tyler believed that this organization was an integral part of curriculum development as it highly impacts the effectiveness of instruction. Tyler believed that the three vital elements required to organize learning experiences effectively are sequence, continuity and integration.

Critical Analysis

Though Tyler’s model reduces the complexity of a difficult task of curriculum planning, development and management by providing a sequential step by step approach, it would be wrong to say it’s perfect, as in reality this process is constantly changing and evolving. Tyler’s model might require slight improvisation to integrate more recent changes in education. Smith and Lovat (2003) believed that the model needed to be more holistic and multidimensional as it did not reflect how teachers develop curriculum. Though the step-by-step approach is definitely the biggest advantage of this model, but it only holds valid if the subject material being taught can easily be broken down into a step by step process. Challenges arise in incorporating subject material that cannot easily be segmented. This is a definite weakness of the Tyler’s model. Tyler’s model holds good in cases there is a direct relationship between desired learner’s outcomes and teaching learning activities.

Another drawback of Tyler’s model is that lays a greater emphasis on measurable objectives. This means that many moral or ethical objectives, particularly those from the affective domain such as increasing respect for others cannot be included in measurable objectives as accurate evaluation of such objectives might be difficult.

Tyler’s model is logical and can therefore be easily followed by fresh teachers who are unsure about the curriculum development process, however its excessive rigidity and does not allow any unexpected changes in teaching, location or student responses in case of experienced teachers impacting the creativity of the teachers. Hlebowitsh, (2005) believes that Tyler’s model is a management device designed to reduce teacher creativity and flexibility within the classroom; which ignores the unintended outcomes of learning and subsequently limit creativity.

Tyler’s model restricts teachers and curriculum planners to lay more emphasis on their task and its intended outcomes rather than the process of learning. It provides very little scope for the student’s individual traits, unforeseen circumstances or responsiveness to unintended learning. Factors such as cultural variances, high or low performance levels, physical and mental disabilities and even eccentric personalities, do not fit within the framework of Tyler’s model.

Beyer and Apple (1990) believed that Tyler’s model gave more power in the hands of the teacher, as it did not take students perspective into consideration. Beyer and Apple (1990) supported a more democratic relationship between teacher and student. Involvement of learners in the curriculum development process, would certainly benefit the model by syncing the appropriate learning activities in line with the needs and interests of the learners.

Ralph Tyler’s thinking has had an everlasting effect on teaching learning process; on what to teach, how to teach it and how to assess students. Tyler’s model has been challenged time and again over the past 6 decades, but it has endured all challenges and still continues to be popular because of its elegant simplicity. Meyer and Apple (1998) stated that Tyler’s model has withstood the waves of time due to its resemblance to society’s expectations of schooling and curriculum planning, where by schools are believed to be places of learning, objectives are developed in terms of desired learning and curriculum is defined in relation to desired learning outcomes. Tyler’s model could be improvised with increased student inputs into the learning process and might need updating from time to time to be abreast with current changes. But, despite the need for these changes, the model still has a strong standing in providing sound guiding principles for teachers to aid them in curriculum development. As Smith and Lovat (2003) stated “The task of curriculum and the knowledge base upon which it draws is complex and multifaceted and it is unlikely ... that any curriculum model will be able to perfectly justify the complexity of such an intricate task”.

Keeping the above pointers in mind, it is highly likely that the world will continue to benefit from the influence of Tyler’s model on curriculum development process, for many years to come. In light of this, it is likely that curriculum development process will continue to benefit from the influence of Tyler’s model for many years to come.