Tyler, Walker and Eisner

Assignment:

Critically compare the three approaches to curriculum planning of Tyler, Walker, and Eisner. From your experience describe how these approaches would help or hinder the development of curriculum for a classroom that includes a variety of learners who are developmentally behind, average, and advanced.

My First Response:

The three approaches to curriculum, Tyler’s rational-linear, Walker’s deliberative and Eisner’s artistic, combined, make up what is required of realistic curriculum making today. Though we may all lean towards a particular aspect of one the theorists, we all must admit we, as people, draw from multiple theories. This seems to be the theory of the day in all of education and psychology. From “nature” and “nurture”
to curriculum theory.

Though my experience in curriculum is from a private setting where I made the rules (heh, lucky me), I will show what I see as my leanings, from the unique characteristics of each of the three theories discussed.

Tyler’s Rational-Linear approach lends to curriculum theory the idea that in developing a curriculum, we should be asking questions of our goals throughout the process. Starting with the Objectives, we question the purpose of our educating. Once we have decided upon this purpose, we question what learning experiences (learning actions and activities) will lead to this objective. Next, we ask how we should organize these experiences, and finally, we question how we can evaluate what we have just done in order to improve it for the future. To show an example of what questions may be asked for a particular learning objective, I shall look at a religious curriculum. Though not directly related to school psychology, let’s suppose a church leadership wanted to conduct a class on “how to be a better Christian.” What would their purpose be? What would they use in deciding their purpose? Some sources that may be utilized in answering this question would be senior members of the church, the histories of said members, socially accepted philosophies of what a church is supposed to be, and written documentation of what a church should be (the Bible, perhaps). Here, combining these sources, the curriculum building leadership of the church may decide that they wish it to be their purpose to create a people who are giving, compassionate, caring, discriminatory, and who show no biases against their fellow man yet who are always ready to give an account for why they are members of their church and why they believe what they believe.

This would bring us to our second question: What experiences would be useful in attaining these objectives? It could be theorized that since the objectives imply an active lifestyle, and not just the attainment of knowledge, that both traditional learning and application of that learning may be useful. Compassion can be taught, but a true learning activity would be to go out and practice being compassionate.

Following this decision for the need of action, our Christian Curriculum Theorists (CCTs) would have to decide the order of these steps. Do they throw their prospective students out to the masses in low income housing and hope no one gets mad at anyone? Probably best if they don’t jump into that. However, if, through classes and discussion, the true value and true needs of people in inner city projects are realized, going into such areas may end up being a rewarding and learning experience for everyone involved. The CCTs may decide that there are base needs which first need to be addressed, and they may further decide (or realize, as the case may be) that working to meet these base needs will not only show compassion, but will possibly open
the doors of communication for an explanation of what they, as a group, believe. It must be remembered, however, and because of that, taught, that no matter what the other person believes, respect and integrity must be shown, because if not the message will not be received, or worse, will be negatively received. So… it could be summed, that the order of things will first be a summation of knowledge as to the purpose and value and needs of people followed by an application of action to show the value and meet the needs of the people. This will be followed, hopefully, by an opportunity to share knowledge with the people the group has assisted. In short, teach people to love, respect, value and help their fellow man, and then go and do it, through whatever means decided on (give out free lunches on Saturdays, provide free tutoring to children in need, etc.). Then, there will be an opportunity to share, beyond material items or time, spiritual knowledge with the target population.

Finally, after doing this for a few Saturdays, the CCTs can review to see if their students (the congregation) has learned a true compassion for others, and if that compassion has lead to the verifiable helping of others. If not, make adjustments as to what you teach as important, and try again. You will have to decide how to evaluate this. In our example, maybe the wording of prayers and how free time is spent could be used to show that people have or have not changed as part of the “curriculum.”

My, that was verbose, and somewhat unexpected.

From this theory, I believe that the “evaluation” phase is what I draw from the most. I’m more likely to just try something without all the initial thought than Tyler would condone, but I always look back on what I’ve done to see if maybe something should be changed.

Second, is Walker’s Deliberative approach. Walker would observe this process in action by watching the church leaders, to see what they have been doing. He would point out the individual differences in the people involved, showing their values and beliefs. The combination of these will be the platform on which the curriculum is built. I like this notion, because when I taught, I found that much of what I did as a teacher came from within me and my fellow teachers. Our deliberations brought the curriculum together. What we believed meshed together to formulate how our school operated. Though I most closely identify with Walker’s depiction of curriculum theory, I do believe that those involved in this process have to have a natural tendency towards a viable curriculum, as there is a certain level of innateness needed. Based on our discussions, curriculum developed. Decisions were made, but more because they were made, and less because we set out to make them. The thoughts were, “what do we teach and how do we teach it.” This is a natural question to be answered in a school. It is very seldom that people following this mode of curriculum building set out with specific definitions of curriculum to set up a curriculum.

As pointed out on page 81 of the text, whereas Tyler looks at what should happen, Walker looks at what does happen.

Finally there is Eisner. He sums up his entire theory with the quote, “I believe we need a theory that unapologetically recognizes the artistry of teaching and that is useful in helping teachers develop those arts.” To focus on the first part of this sentence, we can say that to an extent, teaching is a natural, artistic talent. Without trying to offend anyone, I honestly believe that some people can be a teacher, as they have this artistry, and some people can not, because they do not have this artistry. Eisner seems to be saying that for those who have that art, we must recognize it and develop curriculum that develops it to be even greater. For Eisner, curriculum is a path to be traveled, and we can not know exactly where it will go. Tyler, on the opposite end of this thought, would want a very specific map of the path. Eisner provides no map, and the path of curriculum must be found.

Eisner’s curriculum theories emphasize art in people as well. To him, school is more than the “three Rs” but rather should be drawn from the many active aspects of society. I enjoy his willingness to admit that we are more than mere machines which should obtain pre-ordained bits of knowledge. From Eisner, I glean the concept that we are all individuals, unique and constantly changing and improving.

(OK, I'm tired. I'm curious to see what people post in response to this.)

Response by the professor:

David, Although you indicated that you would draw from
all three theories, it seems that you have less
preference for Eisner's theory. Am I reading that right?
If so please elaborate.

My response:

I think I was just as much tired of writing as anything
else, to be honest. Personally, I like Eisner's ideas,
but I do feel that they won't work with a large group of
people. On a similar hand, I don't feel a lot of people
should be teachers, as I feel teaching is more or less a
natural talent or "gift." It's something which can't be
taught to just anyone. Often, the art of teaching just
is.

For those people who are teachers (by a gifting, let's
say), some of them will have a rigid style, and go with
Tyler. Those who are not purely teachers by nature will
need to go with Tyler's style as they will need the
rigidity he offers. Others will be freeer spirits, and
go with Eisner. Most people, though, won't be albe to
follow the concepts of Eisner, as they will need the
greater structure. Only truly gifted teachers will be
able to follow the looseness of Eisner's curriculum
development and still find that they are teaching in the
end.

And another student resonds:

DavidP, I like the way you have explained Tyler's
approach with the example of a Religious curriculum. I
especially like your emphasis on Evaluation, since I
believe that Curriculum Planners should take the risk of
implementing novel ideas that they would think are
promising, instead of spending a lot of time
contemplating whether it would work or not, because it
is different from the traditional approach. They could
leave the decision to the Evaluation stage.

Filed under: EDC 541 Curriculum and Instruction for Diverse Learners
Copyright: May, 2003 - David Profitt