Ralph Tyler

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