Week 2 Post: On Chapter 1 of Tyler's Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949)
Reading this first chapter of Tyler's book Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949), I found myself thinking a lot about two particular curriculum issues I've been dealing with at my own school (a community college).
The first is a major overhauling of course objectives across all of the courses we offer. It has been years since we've done a mass revision (if it's ever been done...) and our instructors are struggling with the task. They're not only struggling with the task because it is a huge undertaking to revise objectives across all courses, but they're also struggling with the task because many of them are not trained in writing curriculum.
The "subject specialists" Tyler writes about (pp. 26-27) are the ones designing and writing our curriculum: the teachers at my college are, indeed, subject specialists, people who have studied and taught for years--decades--within a very specific discipline. And very few of our teachers have degrees in education. While they are far removed, both in time as well as in spirit, from the Committee of Ten, that group of elites working on high to norm secondary education in order for students to be what they considered prepared for college and university studying, the teachers at my school are still a group of subject specialists setting learning objectives for students they (the specialists) imagine will be pursuing that very particular field of study. And, especially at a community college, where our courses are introductory and survey in nature, that isn't usually the case. For example, it is hard for our PhD in chemistry to grapple with writing a set of objectives general enough to apply to an 18-year-old student who is only taking general chemistry as a degree requirement for her associate in arts; and that student really wants to be a high school English teacher.
And that idea of generalized objectives was another portion of Tyler's chapter that resonated with me as I thought about a second curriculum issue at my school. When Tyler wrote about Judd and Freeman as proponents of the more generalized objectives (pp. 42), and then he revealed that he, too, viewed "objectives as general modes of reaction to be developed rather than highly specific habits to be acquired" (pp. 43), I was hugely relieved. We just redesigned the curriculum of our "freshman experience" course (a one-credit course mandatory for all of our first-time, full-time students) and the new goals the curriculum team wrote were in line with generalized goals. Redesigning the curriculum for this class was tricky because it's a class that many of our students must take, and it also tends to be a catch-all for things teachers and administrators feel students need help with. But rather than continue with the set of very specific objectives the course had had previously, the redesign team went more general and aligned the four course objectives with the four general education goals of our institution. After reading this portion of Tyler's chapter, I am happy with that decision (and especially happy that they didn't decide to follow Thorndike's lead and craft 3,000 objectives. Like, seriously, Thorndike? Take it down a notch).
There is a lot more to think about than the sliver of what I've connected to in this post. I also noticed a nice connection between Caswell's article from last week and Tyler's chapter this week. Both recognize that the questions curriculum designers must answer are about who should be involved in designing and writing curriculum and how should the process go. Who do we invite into the "room where it happens" (couldn't help myself) and how do we work once we are all together?
And there was a dread I felt when reading the start of Tyler's chapter (the same dread I felt when I read Caswell's article) when I thought about what a complex process this would be if we are to design truly effective curriculum--studying the students through multiple measures, gathering, analyzing, and interpreting the data. And it never stops. Even if we are less inclined to use what Tyler calls the "studies of contemporary life," we must recognize that the world is changing, and with it are our students. Our freshman experience class no longer needs to orient students to our learning management system because they all use one in high school--and this is a relatively new realization for us.
Curriculum needs to change and adapt to meet our students' and our society's needs, and we need to be able to make those changes nimbly and intelligently. Good luck to us, right?
The first is a major overhauling of course objectives across all of the courses we offer. It has been years since we've done a mass revision (if it's ever been done...) and our instructors are struggling with the task. They're not only struggling with the task because it is a huge undertaking to revise objectives across all courses, but they're also struggling with the task because many of them are not trained in writing curriculum.
The "subject specialists" Tyler writes about (pp. 26-27) are the ones designing and writing our curriculum: the teachers at my college are, indeed, subject specialists, people who have studied and taught for years--decades--within a very specific discipline. And very few of our teachers have degrees in education. While they are far removed, both in time as well as in spirit, from the Committee of Ten, that group of elites working on high to norm secondary education in order for students to be what they considered prepared for college and university studying, the teachers at my school are still a group of subject specialists setting learning objectives for students they (the specialists) imagine will be pursuing that very particular field of study. And, especially at a community college, where our courses are introductory and survey in nature, that isn't usually the case. For example, it is hard for our PhD in chemistry to grapple with writing a set of objectives general enough to apply to an 18-year-old student who is only taking general chemistry as a degree requirement for her associate in arts; and that student really wants to be a high school English teacher.
And that idea of generalized objectives was another portion of Tyler's chapter that resonated with me as I thought about a second curriculum issue at my school. When Tyler wrote about Judd and Freeman as proponents of the more generalized objectives (pp. 42), and then he revealed that he, too, viewed "objectives as general modes of reaction to be developed rather than highly specific habits to be acquired" (pp. 43), I was hugely relieved. We just redesigned the curriculum of our "freshman experience" course (a one-credit course mandatory for all of our first-time, full-time students) and the new goals the curriculum team wrote were in line with generalized goals. Redesigning the curriculum for this class was tricky because it's a class that many of our students must take, and it also tends to be a catch-all for things teachers and administrators feel students need help with. But rather than continue with the set of very specific objectives the course had had previously, the redesign team went more general and aligned the four course objectives with the four general education goals of our institution. After reading this portion of Tyler's chapter, I am happy with that decision (and especially happy that they didn't decide to follow Thorndike's lead and craft 3,000 objectives. Like, seriously, Thorndike? Take it down a notch).
There is a lot more to think about than the sliver of what I've connected to in this post. I also noticed a nice connection between Caswell's article from last week and Tyler's chapter this week. Both recognize that the questions curriculum designers must answer are about who should be involved in designing and writing curriculum and how should the process go. Who do we invite into the "room where it happens" (couldn't help myself) and how do we work once we are all together?
And there was a dread I felt when reading the start of Tyler's chapter (the same dread I felt when I read Caswell's article) when I thought about what a complex process this would be if we are to design truly effective curriculum--studying the students through multiple measures, gathering, analyzing, and interpreting the data. And it never stops. Even if we are less inclined to use what Tyler calls the "studies of contemporary life," we must recognize that the world is changing, and with it are our students. Our freshman experience class no longer needs to orient students to our learning management system because they all use one in high school--and this is a relatively new realization for us.
Curriculum needs to change and adapt to meet our students' and our society's needs, and we need to be able to make those changes nimbly and intelligently. Good luck to us, right?
Intriguing thoughts brought up in this article, and I liked how you related your personal experience with some aspects of the Tyler and Caswell readings. I feel that I am being redundant by reiterating my point from the other blog posted this week, but I wholly agree with the last point of your post that curriculum needs to adapt with the needs of the student and society.
ReplyDeleteI also could see how changing a curriculum that has basically become institutionalized within America's educational system could be problematic. I think that the 21st century differentiates itself from the past by how fast our technology, our norms, and our needs are evolving. Tyler makes it a point in his reading to ask how can we incorporate the ever growing knowledge in contemporary society to fit a curriculum purposed for every student. With that, who gets to decide what information is worth knowing will that information remain relevant ten years from now? I don't have an answer, but I think we as researchers need to focus on our analysis of the advantages and shortcomings of our educational system today, and evaluate the outcome of contemporary programs as they are being implemented
I personally like the idea of forming curriculum around the interest of the learner, and the learner should have the opportunity to explore their interests earlier in within their formal education.
Thank you for sharing!
First of all, thank you for your sharing. It's very useful that you combine this article with real education to give me more inspiration. At the same time, it's also very meaningful to link Caswell's article with Tyler's chapter. In the author's exposition of the significance of setting educational goals, we can also see a connection between educational goals and the selection of teaching materials, the outline of teaching contents, the formation of teaching steps, and the formulation of test and examination standards. This connection not only tells us the significance of educational objectives, but also tells us clearly that under the guidance of educational objectives, we should think about four aspects. In the final analysis, the goal is a matter of choice, so it is the value judgment made by those responsible for the school after careful consideration. This requires a comprehensive philosophy of education to guide these judgments. Anyway, I agree with you.Curriculum needs to change and adapt to meet our students' and our society's needs, and we need to be able to make those changes nimbly and intelligently. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteYour experiences and opinion about course revision are interesting. After actually participated in the course revision, I guess you must have a better understanding of it. It is true that the revision of an effective curriculum is a complex process. It is not just a change in mindset, but a long-term task. In general, the revision not only needs teachers and administrators pay attention to the objectives across all courses but also need them to have the skills of write curriculum. It is not only related to what educators think are quite important to the student but also related to what students really need. I was interested in your question “who should be involved in designing and writing curriculum?” In this regard, I believe that teachers and curriculum designers should dominate in a course revision, but the interests of students are equally important. Students are educated to better adapt to modern society. Thus, as teachers, we should inspire students' potential, instead of using unchanged teaching methods all the time.
Thanks for your post. I am interested in the concept "effective curriculum" that you mentioned in the post. I agree with you that the curriculum designed should meet what students and today's society need and I think the "effective curriculum" depends on its objective. From my understanding, adapting to students' and society's needs is the broaden educational objective that guide the educators to design the curriculum. However, whether the curriculum is effective, I think it depends on if students' outcomes after taking the curriculum will achieve its objective, in other words, whether the curriculum can help students' develop some specific abilities and skills they want or they are required to equip in the society. However, how to select or design the curriculum objectives, I agree with what you conclude after reading Tyler's Chapter-studying students, trying to know more about students in a scientific way. I think the curriculum cannot be designed just according to what educators want students to learn, but more to consider and respect students' thoughts, abilities and interests as discussed in the chapter.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi. Thanks for sharing. I totally agree with you that “ the curriculum needs to change and adapts to meet our students’ and our society’s need.” There is a common phenomenon in China that a bunch of students was unable to get a job related to their majors after they graduating from universities. I think that there are several reasons behind it. First of all, these students had no idea of which job they want to take up in the future when they transform from high schools to universities because there’s no course teaching them about their future jobs, so their parents would made decision for them. As a result, some of them may have to learn what bored them for four years because it is difficult for many students to change their major in university currently. What’s worse, they maybe cannot find a work place which matches their own specialized field because of quantity demanded of the job market. It is a pity that these students have to spend their precious four year on the majors that they don’t like and then have to spend their more times or even whole life on the career that they are not interested in.
ReplyDelete1. Thank you for your posting. I think the two particular issues you talk about in the posting is really significance. For the first is about course objectives across all of the courses we offer. Course objectives represent the overarching purpose of the course. They speak to the general course goals and frequently link the goals to the summative intention of the program in which the course is located. Good course objectives can provide a guide line for teacher to teach and can make educators know what kind of students should be educated when they grow up, what kind of students is better for the development of society. Besides, I agree with your idea that curriculum needs to change and adapt to meet our students' and our society's needs, and we need to be able to make those changes nimbly and intelligently. Everything changes quickly nowadays. How should we adapt to the need of society? How students adapt to the society? That is what we educators really need to think a lot.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing. When you saying that we need to recognize the changing world, and the changing students, I think this goes as well as teachers, which makes curriculum designers be more complicated in thinking about design. Because sometimes teachers may have no idea in teaching towards the new curriculum at the first time. This is a challenge for teachers. Or sometimes students would not convince the teaching of teachers, from teaching methodology to teaching contents. As society develops, it is hard for us to foresee the right major for the future. I agree with you that curriculum needs to change and adapt to meet our students' and our society's needs.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing! This reading holds a particular significance to me since I teach science to elementary age kids. Often I find myself looking over curriculum and asking myself " How does this curriculum contribute to the enhancement of my students I am teaching and their success for this future?" The connection you made in your first paragraph about subject specialists I completely agree with. Subject specialists, as you stated, set learning objectives that they believe the students will need in order to go into that particular field. I also agree with you that in most cases, the objectives do not necessarily meet the needs of the students. In my undergrad classes I had to take a higher end science course ( biochemistry, organic chemistry, physics 1 &2), in which the " subject specialists" did not keep in mind that what I really needed to get out of the course were the basics. Why am I learning objectives that I will never have to teach to my 9 and 10 year old students? With that being said, it makes me think about my personal curriculum that I set for my students and whether it is meeting their needs. Having the basic standards to work off of is a good starting point. However, I think as educators we should be challenging the objectives and adding to them to help meet the needs of society and our students. As society develops and changes, we should be looking at curriculum and adapting it to meet the new needs of students.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that curriculum needs to change and adapt to meet our students' and our society's needs, and we need to be able to make those changes nimbly and intelligently.
I mean what we should do as educators is to help students have better understanding towards life I think. If curriculum only serve to the knowledge of textbooks, how can students learn how to live? The world is changing all the time as well. The curriculum should not be invariable. The goal of education is for students to achieve their life goal I think. So the curriculum should be based on what students need firstly. Then education should help student live better in the society. Because no bossy can live totally alone in this society. So the curriculum should be changed in term of the needs of society all the time as well.
Thank you for your blog, particularly the Hamilton reference! It sounds like for the professors at your college pursuing a curriculum re-vamp, they could have benefited from taking the advice of Tyler, and considering the viewpoint of students when doing so. Perhaps it would be going to far to have students "in the room where it happens," but it would be perfectly reasonable for them to consider the input of students who had previously taken the courses and responded to questionnaires. Thanks again for a thoughtful blog!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI find your commentary fruitful for a number of reasons, primarily because your experience and concern over the notions of subject mastery vs. curriculum seems to encompass many of the concerns that surround both curriculum and policy alike- specifically in the U.S. How do we teach and what do we teach? Whose values get to be taught? (in other words, who wins?)
When I read this chapter I continuously found myself thinking about primary and secondary school and not in terms of higher education ( insight you provided). I think this is because lawfully, students have to participate in schooling at the primary and secondary level rather than choose to participate in schooling in the latter (at least in the U.S). I am not an educator but am sure it is a difficult task to consolidate the dynamic individual human experience and as a committee decide how an institution can provide information to develop an individual’s knowledge on any given subject.
In terms of the reading, I found myself just as overwhelmed as your school’s committee. The dialogue around objectives is so vast because they vary from institution to institution and institutional values are funded by investors and government with agendas ( not all the time, but a lot of the time in the U.S.). I can’t help but think in the realm of “the bigger picture”. I think schools and teachers’ professional equilibrium is constantly challenged in the manner that the text describes a student’s equilibirum being penetrated by outside sources. Many time’s one’s values as an educator are imposed on by an administration, that administration is imposed on by politics and how do those agendas affect students and the values imposed on by their culture and familial upbringing? I think these are the some of the questions Tyler is asking us, as the readers to begin to digest.
I wonder how Tyler’s views around the theme of educational objectives translate globally?
I appreciate the fact that you mentioned being a content specialist does not solely make you a good candidate to write curriculum. We must continue to think about things from various standpoints. Curriculum should be a multi-layered approach to teaching and learning. Therefore, top notch content cannot stand alone as good curriculum. There need to be other folks involved that see through a different lens. Curriculum needs to continue to be geared towards our learners' needs, immediate and long term. How can we adjust who has a seat at the table to better meet the needs of our students? Writing objectives that can be digested by our adolescence is also an important piece, in my opinion. Students should also be able to articulate where they are going in the learning continuum in order to have some sense of agency, authority and identity within their own learning.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing you experience! For me it's important to hear from people actually in the field to stay grounded and not to theoretical or utopian.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your final thoughts on being adaptable in the changing times. I think that's really important. Your thoughts on your fellow professors' subject matter expertise and trouble with curriculum design reminded me of my issues with college professors. Colleges hire them for their research, name, or CV not because they are good educators. Some cases, subject-matter specialists are good educators, but more often than not, they are just field experts. I don't think I quite understood, but I'm curious how your college is helping these professors develop curriculum. Is there PD, or any assistance?
As to your second thought about the course for all freshmen, it seems that your college has a good idea what their purpose is and how to go about it. The redesign seems to balance the many different needs of an incoming freshmen class and the university objectives. How many semesters have this be in action? I'm curious to hear how it is going.