Introduction to Basic
Principles of Curriculum and Instruction
Introduction
Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction (1949) was prepared as a syllabus for
Education 360 at the University of Chicago.
Tyler (1976) pointed out that Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction was “intended to be a guide for the thinking and planning of
students, most of who were mature professionals working on problems of curriculum and instruction in their
own institutions or organizations” (p. 61). In the introduction of Basic
Principles of Curriculum and Instruction,
Tyler was careful to point out what the syllabus was and what it was not. It
was an attempt “to explain a
rationale for viewing, analyzing, and interpreting the curriculum and
instructional program of an educational institution” (Tyler, 1949, p. 1). The
book outlined “one way of viewing an instructional program as a functioning
instrument of education” (p. 1). Basic
Principles of
Curriculum and Instruction suggested methods of studying the four
fundamental questions presented in the book:
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. 1)
On the other hand, Tyler (1949) did not attempt to answer these
questions “… since the answers will vary to some extent from one level of
education to another and from one school to another” (pp. 1-2). Tyler added
that this book was “not a textbook, for it does not provide comprehensive guidance and
readings for a course” (p. 1).
Finally, he stated that Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction was “… not a manual for curriculum construction, since it does
not describe and outline in details the steps to be taken by a given school or
college that seeks to build a curriculum” (p. 1). However, Tyler
recommended procedures, which “… constitute a rationale by which to examine problems
of curriculum and instruction” (p. 2).
Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction was 128 pages long and organized into
five chapters. The first four chapters dealt with the four fundamental
questions Tyler posed concerning curriculum.
The fifth and final chapter dealt briefly, in three pages, with how a
school or college staff may work on building a curriculum.
The
Eight-Year Study
The Eight-Year Study was conceptualized
during a conference held by the Progressive Education Association (PEA) in
1930; despite its name, it evolved over a twelve year period from 1930 to 1942
(Kridel & Bullough, 2007). Also
known as the Thirty School Study, the Eight-Year Study arose from “two rather
innocuous goals: ‘To establish a
relationship between school
and college that would
permit and encourage reconstruction in
the
secondary school,’ and ‘to find, through exploration and experimentation, how
the high school in the United States could serve youth more effectively’”
(Kridel & Bullough, 2007, p. 3). During the PEA conference, it was
determined that a small number of schools would be encouraged to design
curriculum that would serve the needs of high school students of that period. The 30 schools and school systems would be
given eight years to implement and execute new educational programs. During those eight years, the schools were
free of any state or college entrance requirements in order to provide freedom
for experimentation. One stipulation was placed upon the agreement
by the colleges and state
departments. There would be an evaluation
program established to measure success. The
evaluation program consisted of three major areas of focus. First, detailed
records were kept of each student’s performance in order for colleges to make
wise admission decisions. Second,
there was a follow up for those who went to college to see how well they
performed on their college work, as well as a follow
up
program for those who went directly from high school to an occupation to see
how well they did. Finally, a feedback loop was established to help the schools
measure what students were learning as the schools continued to design the
programs of study.
The first year of the Eight
Year Study was 1933-34.
However,
it soon ran into crisis. The
directing committee planned “to use the General Culture Test developed by the
Cooperative Test Service for the Pennsylvania Study of School and College
Relations” (Nowakowski, 1981, p. 10). At the end of the first year, the schools
discovered that these evaluations were not valid since they did not measure the
focus of the new curriculum. Basically,
these evaluations measured recall information about the things presented in the
previous widely used textbooks. The
schools spoke out saying that the recall information was not what they were
trying to teach, and these tests were not a fair means of evaluation. While
meeting at the Princeton Inn in June of 1934, the schools gave an ultimatum that
they would not continue with this study if they were to be assessed by the
present evaluation system. Boyd Bode, a member of the directing committee, as
well as a well-known philosopher of education at Ohio State University offered
a suggestion:
We’ve got a young man in
evaluation at Ohio State who bases evaluation on what
the schools are trying to do. He
works closely with them and doesn’t simply take a test off the shelf. Why don’t you see if he will take
responsibility for directing the evaluation?”
(Nowakowski, 1983, p. 26)
Ralph
Tyler was interviewed and agreed to accept a half-time position as director of evaluation for the Eight Year
Study. This would begin Tyler’s involvement with this famous study.
As Tyler began working with the evaluation
staff to help schools in the area of evaluation, Harold Alberty began working
with the curriculum staff to aid in the development
of curricula. Five years after the study began, schools
started to comment about the
difference in support they were receiving from the evaluation and curriculum
staff. Wilford Aikin, the director of the
Eight-Year Study, interviewed the different heads of participating
schools that reported, “… the evaluation staff is so much more helpful than the
curriculum staff” (Tyler, Schubert, & Schubert, 1986, p. 94). Alberty explained this difference by
stating that, “Tyler has a rationale for evaluation and there isn’t any rationale for curriculum” (Nowakowski, 1983,
p. 26). As Tyler was having lunch
with his right-hand associate, Hilda Taba, he told her, “Shucks, we can produce
a rationale for them” (Tyler et al., 1986, p. 94). It was then that Tyler sketched out on a napkin what is now
often called “the Tyler Rationale.” This
outline developed into Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, which
Tyler often referred to as the little book.
Although the Eight Year Study was one of the
most important and comprehensive curriculum experiments ever carried on in the
United States, it was a casualty of World War II. The study established beyond question that those high school
students involved in the study were not handicapped in college due to their
participation. In fact, Chamberlin, Chamberlin, Drought, and Scott
(1942) wrote:
Those
students who graduated from the most experimental schools were striking more
successful than their matches. Differences in their favor were much greater
than the differences between the total Thirty Schools and their comparison
group. Conversely, there were no
large or consistent differences between the least experimental graduates and their
comparison group. (p. 209)
Educational Purposes
Chapter one focused on the selection of
educational purposes. Tyler (1949)
devoted almost half of the book, 60 pages, to the selection of educational
purposes because “they are the most critical criteria for guiding all the other
activities of the curriculum-maker” (p. 62).
Chapter one was organized into six main sections. In the first three sections, Tyler (1949) identified three
different sources from which to obtain educational purposes: the learners themselves, contemporary life
outside of school, and subject specialists.
He believed that “no single
source of information is adequate to provide a basis for
wise and comprehensive decisions about the objectives in school” (p. 5). Sections four and five examined the use of
philosophy and psychology as screen for the selection of objectives. Section
six outlined different ways of stating objectives in order to facilitate the
selection of learning experiences.
To begin with, Tyler noted what educational
objectives were and their importance. For
Tyler (1949), “Education is a process of changing the behavior patterns of
people” (p. 6). Although to some people, this
statement sounded behaviorist: Tyler meant behavior in the “broad sense”
of the term to include “thinking and feeling as well as overt action” (p. 6). These behavioral
or educational objectives are “… consciously willed goals… ends that are
desired by the school staff… not simply matters of personal preference of
individuals or groups” (p. 3). These objectives provide “… the criteria by
which materials are selected, content is outlined, instructional procedures are
developed and tests and examinations are prepared” (p. 3). Although Tyler
stated, “In the final analysis objectives are matters of choice … the
considered value judgments of those responsible for the school,” (p. 4) he
outlined three different sources and two screens to aid in the selection of the
objectives.
The first source Tyler suggested was the
study of the learners. He noted, “A
study of the learners themselves would seek to identify needed changes in behavior patterns of the students
which the educational institution should seek to produce” (Tyler, 1949, p. 6). Tyler believed that it was essential for
education to “provide opportunities for students to enter actively into, and to
deal wholeheartedly with, the things
which interest him” (p. 11). Therefore, when studying
this source, Tyler suggested
examining the needs of the students as well as their
interests.
Tyler
(1949) addressed two different definitions of the term need. The first definition represented “a gap between some conception of a desirable
norm” (p. 7). In other words, “Need … is the gap between what is and what
should be” (p. 8). The second
definition represented “tensions in the organism which must be brought into
equilibrium for a normal healthy condition of the organism to be maintained”
(p. 8). These needs could include
physical, social or integrative needs.
In addition to examining the needs of the
learner, Tyler suggested that studies be conducted to determine the interest of the learner. He argued, “Education is an active process” which “involves the active efforts of
the learner himself” (Tyler,
1949, p. 11). Therefore, if
the student’s interests are used as
a
“point of departure,” it was likely that the student “will actively participate in them and thus learn to deal
effectively with these situations” (p. 11).
Tyler (1949) recommended the use of teacher
observations, student interviews, parent interviews, questionnaires, tests, and
records as methods to investigate the learners’ needs and interests in order to
identify educational purposes. Tyler
noted that since there were many different aspects of the learner’s life that
could be studied, it was important to
classify the areas into
particular groups and study those
groups
carefully. Furthermore, he explained, “objectives are
not automatically identified by collecting information about the students” (p.
15). The school must examine the data and derive the objectives that are
consistent to the purpose and philosophy
of the school.
Second, Tyler identified contemporary life as
a source for obtaining educational purposes.
The need for studying contemporary life as a source for objectives
developed after the Industrial Revolution due to the massive increase in knowledge. Schools were no longer able to teach
all the information that scholars considered important for learning; therefore,
it was necessary to identify those aspects of contemporary life which would be
beneficial for students to know.
Tyler offered two arguments for analyzing
contemporary life. Because of the
complexity and continuous changes in contemporary life, school must focus on
the critical aspects of society and not waste students’ time learning things
that were important years ago but were no longer
significant. The second argument focused on the findings concerning the
transfer of training. According to those
findings, the student was “much more likely to apply his learning when he
recognized the similarity between the situations encountered in life and the situations in which the
learning took place” (Tyler, 1949, p.
18).
Subject matter specialists were the third
source Tyler identified for deriving objectives. This source was identified as the most common
source for objectives since schools,
colleges, as well as textbook manufacturers relied heavily on the subject
matter specialists. Tyler criticized
the subject matter specialists’ reports published by the Committee of Ten which
outlined certain educational objectives. To
Tyler, the Committee of Ten was seeking the answer to the wrong question.
Instead of asking, “What should be the elementary instruction for students who
are later to carry on much more advanced work in the field?” Tyler (1949)
suggested the Committee of Ten should have been asking, “What can your subject
contribute to
the
education of young people who are not going to be specialist in your field?”
(p. 26).
According to Tyler, the subject specialists’
knowledge was important in the consideration of objectives. Tyler identified
two different functions of this knowledge. The
first function centered on the “broad functions a particular subject can serve”
(Tyler, 1949, p. 27). The second
function focused on the “particular contributions the subject can make to other
large functions which are not
primarily functions of the subject concerned” (p. 28).
When utilizing the three sources Tyler
acknowledged, too many possible objectives would be identified. In the next two sections Tyler (1949)
recommended identifying “a smaller
number of consistent highly important objectives” (p. 33). In order to accomplish this, Tyler
proposed screening “the heterogeneous collection of objectives … to eliminate
the unimportant and the contradictory ones” (p. 33). For this process, two screens
would be used.
“The educational and social philosophy to
which the school is committed” (Tyler, 1949, pp. 33-34) would serve as one
screen. Through the use of this screen, objectives
would be culled “by identifying those that stand high in terms of values stated or implied in the school’s
philosophy” (p. 34). Tyler
noted
that in order for this screen to be most helpful, the school’s philosophy
“needs to be stated clearly and for the main points the implications for
educational objectives may need to
be spelled out” (p. 37). According to Tyler, “Those objectives
in
harmony with the philosophy will be identified as important objectives” (p.
37).
The second screen, which included the use of
psychology of learning, would be used to cull the objectives. Tyler (1949) believed, “Educational
objectives are educational ends; they are results to be achieved from learning. Unless these ends are in conformity with
conditions intrinsic in learning they are worthless” (pp. 37-38). The proposed learning objectives can be checked against the psychology
of learning and either accepted
as appropriate objectives or
rejected. Objectives are rejected
if
they are “unattainable, inappropriate to the age level, too general or too
specific, or otherwise in conflict with the psychology of learning” (p. 43).
Selecting Learning
Experiences
In chapter two, Tyler turned his attention to
the selection of learning experiences. For
Tyler (1949), learning experiences referred to “the interaction between the
learner and the external conditions in the environment to which the learner can
react” (p. 63). In other words, the
student must be actively involved in the learning process. Tyler stated, “It is possible for two
students to be in the same class and for them to be having two different
experiences” (p. 63) even with similar
external
conditions. Tyler outlined five general principles for selecting the learning
experiences in order to select the learning experiences that were “likely to
produce the given educational objectives” and “evoke or provide within the
student the kind of learning experiences desired” (p. 65).
The first principle for selecting learning experiences stated, “A student must have experiences that give
him an opportunity to practice the kind of behavior implied by the objectives”
(Tyler, 1949, p. 65). For
example, if the objective was to develop an understanding of the laws of
gravity, the learner must be given the experiences of working with the law of
gravity.
The second principle stated, “The learning experiences must be such that
the student can obtain satisfaction from carrying
on the kind of behavior
implied by the objective” (Tyler, 1949, p. 66). If
the learning experiences are designed unsatisfyingly, the chances of the
desired learning occurring are unlikely.
Third, “the
learning experiences must be within the range of possibility for the student
involved” (Tyler, 1949, p. 67). In other words, the teacher must know where
the student is in terms of prior knowledge and experiences and begin there,
because
if the learning experience is too difficult, the learning will not be
successful.
Fourth, there
are many possible “experiences that
can be used to attain the same educational objectives” (Tyler, 1949, p.
67). This allows the teacher to use his/her
creativity when planning learning activities.
Tyler added, “It is not necessary that the curriculum provide for a
certain limited or prescribed set of
learning experiences in order to assure that the desired objectives are
attained” (p. 67).
Finally,
the fifth principle for selecting learning experiences is that “the same
learning experience will usually bring about several outcomes”
(Tyler, 1949, p. 67). Since the
learning experiences can bring about both positive and negative learning
objectives, the teacher must be cognizant of both positive and negative
learning taking place. Not only did
Tyler provide general principles for
selecting learning experiences,
he included four
characteristics of learning experiences that are
useful in attaining various types of outcomes.
Organizing Learning
Experiences
In chapter three, Tyler (1949) focused his
attention on “organizing the learning experiences for effective instruction”
(p. 83). Tyler began by explaining
organization. He pointed out “in
order for the educational experiences to produce a cumulative effect, they must be organized in such a way as to
reinforce each other” (p. 83). Further,
“organization greatly
influences the efficiency of
instruction and the degree to which major educational
changes are brought about in the learners” (p.83). Tyler (1949) continued by noting that when
organizing learning experiences, one must consider the vertical, learning over
a period of time, and horizontal, learning from one area to another,
relationships. Both of these
relationships are important. The vertical and horizontal experiences provide
greater depth and breadth in the development of learning.
With these two broad organizational
structures, Tyler (1949) identified three criteria for effective organization: “continuity, sequence, and integration”
(p. 84). Tyler defined continuity as
“the vertical repetition of major curriculum elements” (p. 84). For example, if in math the development of
place value is an important objective, it would be necessary to ensure that
there are recurring opportunities for place value skills to be practiced and
developed.
Sequence
was similar to continuity in that it calls for recurring experiences on the
objective. However, sequence takes it
one-step further in that is calls for “each successive experience [to] build
upon the preceding one but to go more
broadly and deeply into the matters involved” (Tyler, 1949, p.84). The use of sequenced learning experiences emphasized
higher order learning not mere repetition.
Finally, integration
referred to the “horizontal relationship of the learning experiences”
(Tyler, 1949, p. 85). Tyler noted it is important to see how the learning
experiences can relate to the other subject areas so that unity in the
student’s outlook, skills, and attitude are increased.
Not only must continuity, sequence, and integration be considered when
organizing learning experiences, but also in planning the curriculum for any
school or field of study, it is important to decide upon certain elements for
organization. These elements or “threads” are often “concepts, values and
skills” within a content area (Tyler, 1949, p. 87).
Once the major elements have been decided,
for example, place value in math or interdependence in social studies; several
organizing principles can be utilized to achieve the continuity, sequence, and
integration of the learning
experiences. Tyler (1949) noted several organizing
principles including:
1.
chronological
2.
increasing
breadth of application
3.
increasing
range of activities included
4.
use
of description followed by analysis
5. development
of specific illustrations followed by broader and broader principles to explain
these illustrations
6. attempt
to build an increasingly unified world picture from specific parts which are
first built into larger and larger wholes. (p. 97)
Evaluating Learning
Experiences
In chapter four, Tyler turned his attention
to evaluation. He began by clarifying the need for evaluation. Evaluation was “a process that finds out
how far the learning experiences as they were developed and organized actually
produced the desired results” (Tyler, 1949, p. 105). Through this process, the program’s strengths and weaknesses can
be identified.
When examining evaluation, Tyler identified
two important aspects. First, evaluation
must appraise the student’s behavior, since according to Tyler (1949), “it is
the change inthese behaviors which is sought in education” (p. 106). Second, evaluation must include at least
two appraisals. Tyler pointed out
that it is important to appraise the students before and after the learning
experiences in order to measure the amount of change. This can be accomplished through the use of
pre-test and post-test.
Tyler noted that these two appraisals are not enough. He
explained that some of the behavioral changes occur during the learning
experiences; however, the learning objectives are soon forgotten. Tyler called
for follow-up studies of graduates in
order to see “the permanence or
impermanence of the learnings” (p. 107).
Since the collection of evidence was part of
the evaluation process, Tyler identified several appropriate methods of evaluation. Of course, paper and pencil tests are one way
of gathering the experience of learning. Tyler
was quick to point out that this method is not the only valid measure. He stated, “There are a great many other
kinds of desired behaviors which represent educational objectives that are not
easily appraised
by paper and pencil devices”
(Tyler, 1949, p. 107). He gave the example
of personal-social adjustment. With
this objective, it was easier and more valid to use “observations of children
under condition in which social relations are involved” (p. 107) than it would
be to use a paper and pencil test. In addition, Tyler noted that interviews,
questionnaires, collections of actual products, and samples of students’ work
or behaviors are all appropriate methods of evaluation.
Clearly defined objectives are the starting
place for the evaluation process. Clearly
defined objectives are “absolutely essential” (Tyler, 1949, p. 111). Tyler noted:
…unless
there is some clear conception of the sort of behavior implied by the
objectives, one has no way of telling what kind of behavior to look for in the students in order to see to that
degree these objectives are being realized. (p. 111)
Once
these objectives have been defined, it was important to identify the types of
situations that would allow the students to demonstrate the objectives learned. This included finding
“situations which not only permit the expression of the behavior but actually
encourage or evoke this behavior” (Tyler,
1949, p. 112). Next, the type of evaluation instrument to be
used must be examined.
Tyler (1949) pointed out that “it is very necessary to check each
proposed evaluation device against the objectives in order to see whether it
uses situations likely to evoke the sort of behavior which is desired as
educational objectives” (p. 113). Tyler
continued by noting that if there was no available evaluation unit, it might be
necessary to create
one. If this were the case, the instrument
would need to be piloted to see whether it served as a convenient way of
gathering evidence. Also, one must
consider the reliability and validity
of the instrument being used.
Once the results of the evaluation are
obtained, the data would need to be analyzed in order to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of the instructional program.
This problem solving process would require examination of possible explanations for evaluation data. Based on the data collected, modifications to
the curriculum could be needed. Tyler
(1949) summarized:
What
is implied in all of this is that curriculum planning is a continuous process
and that as materials and procedures are
developed, they are tried out, their results appraised, their
inadequacies identified, suggested improvements indicated; there is replanning,
redevelopment, and then reapprisal; and in this kind of continuing cycle, it is
possible for the curriculum and instructional
programs to be continuously
improved over the years. In this
way we may hope to have an increasingly more effective educational program
rather than depending so much upon hit and miss judgment as a basis for curriculum development.
(p. 123)
CRITICISMS
The significance of the Tyler Rationale can
be further supported by the amount of controversy
that surrounds it. This controversy
began in 1970 with Kliebard’s analysis and continues today. Kliebard (1970) admitted
that Tyler’s Rationale “has been raised almost to the status of a revealed
doctrine” (p. 259).
He
further stated, “Ralph Tyler deserves
to be enshrined in whatever hall of fame the field of curriculum may wish to
establish” (Kliebard, p. 270). However,
he advised the field of curriculum to recognize Tyler’s Rationale for what it
truly is: “Ralph Tyler’s version of how a curriculum
should be developed – not the universal model of curriculum development”
(Kliebard, p.
270).
Approximately twenty years after its
publication, Kliebard offered many criticisms of Tyler’s Rationale. Kliebard (1970) criticized Tyler for
failing to provide boundaries to be used in deciding what should be included in
the curriculum: “The Rationale offers
little by way of a guide from curriculum-making
because it excludes so little” (p. 267).
Kliebard was not the only one who criticized
Tyler’s Rationale. The reconceptualists
began to offer up criticisms of the Rationale by suggesting that the Rationale
had constricted curriculum thought (Pinar, 1975). Pinar (1978) stated that the “traditionalist” espoused the
controlling methods of
instruction. Hlebowitsh
(1992) noted the reconceptualists
encouraged
curriculum scholars to recognize that “the Tyler Rationale is tyrannically behavioristic
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).
Some of the other criticisms
included (a) the concept of
selecting
behavioral objectives before developing the curriculum and (b) possibly leaving
curriculum-development in the hands
of
a
less-qualified group at the local schools, instead of being mandated by the
state and industrial interests (McNeil, 1990).
Interestingly, Hlebowitsh (1992) noted,
“Tyler, while acknowledging what he believes to be a misperception of his
Rationale, never responded substantively to
Kliebard’s 1970 reappraisal nor to the radical criticism which followed it”
(pp.
533-534). Why would Tyler remain silent? Hlebowitsh, after receiving
a personal correspondence from Tyler on August 23,
1990,
concerning the criticisms, stated:
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.
533-534)
However,
over 50 years after its publication, the Tyler
Rationale
remains a central document in the curriculum field.
Meanwhile, twenty-five years after the
publication of Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Tyler
began revising and expanding his Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction and the drafts are located under the auspices of the Ralph
Tyler Project at the University of Chicago. To
date, and despite the continued significance and controversy of the Tyler
Rationale, the archival materials for this unpublished revision remains
unexamined. Given the implications and
significance of the
