Traditionalist Perspective Reading Response

In Smith’s (2000) article, it states, “the work of Ralph W. Tyler, in particular, has made a lasting impression on curriculum theory and practice” (pp. 3-4). Smith (2000) then proceeds by describing the four fundamental questions that Tyler’s theory was based on,

1. What educational 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? (p. 4).

These questions can be expressed through a procedure that is typical of many Canadian, and other countries’, classrooms. This procedure is broken down into seven steps consisting of diagnosis of need, formulation of objectives, selection of content, organization of content, selection of learning experiences, organization of learning experiences, and determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it (Smith, 2000, p. 4). 

Tyler’s theory coincides with the curriculum as a product perspective of curriculum. This perspective places a greater emphasis on the product that a student presents for evaluation compared to the process that the student engaged in to arrive at the final product. This perspective was used frequently throughout my entire school experience. One example occurred in my tenth-grade physical education class. The class was engaging in a unit on tennis, and we were being graded on whether or not we could serve the tennis ball into a certain area of the tennis court. We were supposed to report the number of times our partner’s ball landed in the area to the teacher who was sitting on the sidelines, not paying any attention to us. The teacher did not observe our form or any other part of the process that we were engaging in to complete the task and develop the final product. I received a 40% in this unit because even though I was trying my best in the process of serving a tennis ball, I was not successful in the final product of serving the ball into a certain area on the court. 

Another example that comes to my mind when I think about how I experienced Tyler’s theory in school is the “mad minutes” we did in math class. I remember the anticipation that used to grow within me as I watched the teacher walk around the classroom handing out single pages filled with math problems that we were to solve within one minute. This activity was meant to test how quickly we could do mental math as well as how well we were understanding the mathematical operations being taught in class. I think the perspective failed to recognize that some students did not perform well on these “mad minutes” simply because they were experiencing test anxiety, not because they did not understand the concepts. The entire process and the pressure that accompanied it was not acknowledged, and once again the final product was the only part that importance was placed upon. 

A final example of how I experienced Tyler’s theory in my school experiences is in every math class I have ever taken. The way that my math classes were set up directly reflects the procedure that is listed above. Typically in my math classes, we dedicated one period to learning one chapter within the unit and another period to doing practice problems corresponding to that chapter. We repeated this pattern until the last chapter had been discussed, then we would have one review period followed by a unit test the next period. We, as students, were subjected to the organization of content as well as the final evaluation of the content. The consistent pattern of math periods reflects the teachers’ reliance on Tyler’s theory of curriculum. 

One limitation of Tyler’s theory is “that the plan or programme assumes great importance” (Smith, 2000, p. 4). In school, I always heard teachers complain that we were “falling behind”. This perspective places a greater emphasis on following a set plan to ensure that all of the content matter is taught instead of whether or not students are understanding the content matter. This can cause students to feel overwhelmed and be less proficient learners because the teacher is teaching the content too quickly. Another limitation is that “it implies that behaviour can be objectively, mechanistically measured” (Smith, 2000, p. 5). This is a limitation because it enforces a dichotomy between right and wrong behaviours, even though there can be a “grey area” in the middle. Every student is unique with diverse experiences and it is unfair for teachers to expect the same behaviours to be expressed in the same ways from each student. A third limitation is “the lack of impact on actual pedagogic practice of objectives” (Smith, 2000, p. 5). The expectations for what children are to accomplish by the end of the school year have become so standardized across Canada, and many other countries, that teachers have a difficult time trying to implement their own pedagogical views in the classroom. A final limitation is that both teachers and students “overlook learning that is occurring as a result of their interactions” (Smith, 2000, p. 5). This perspective only focuses on the standardized objectives but fails to acknowledge the variance in learning that interactions within the classroom bring. 

There have been plenty of limitations listed regarding Tyler’s theory, however, there are some potential benefits as well. One benefit is that it is “systematic and has considerable organizing power” (Smith, 2000, p. 4). I talked at length about how the standardization of this perspective is a drawback, but it is also a strength as it allows each child to receive the same quality of education regardless of their background. The incredible organization that is viewed within this perspective can also be a strength, as it aids in the smooth running of occurrences in the classroom. Another potential benefit is “the formulation of behavioural objectives – providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated” (Smith, 2000, p. 4). Through the use of clear and standardized behavioural objectives, students are aware of the expectations that are placed on them and understand what they need to accomplish by the end of the school year.

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000). ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.