Taba vs Tyler

Summary

This video compares and contrasts the contributions of Ralph Tyler and Hilda Taba to curriculum development. Tyler’s linear, objective-focused model, known as the Tyler Rationale, emphasizes efficiency and measurable outcomes, guiding educators to achieve specific educational goals. In contrast, Taba’s inductive approach emphasizes teacher collaboration and critical thinking, fostering lifelong learning. While both models are rooted in pragmatic theory, Tyler’s approach is more structured and managerial, while Taba’s is flexible and student-centered. Both have had a lasting impact on the field, shaping modern curriculum design and educational practices.

Takeaways

• 😀 Tyler's model of curriculum development emphasizes a technical, linear approach, focusing on clearly defined educational objectives to guide school practices.
• 😀 Taba's model of curriculum development takes a more inductive, grassroots approach, involving educators in the creation of curriculum tailored to students' needs.
• 😀 Both Tyler and Taba were influenced by John Dewey's pragmatic theory, which values education as a preparation for real-life experiences.
• 😀 Tyler’s approach seeks to change student behavior through clearly stated objectives, while Taba emphasizes preparing students for lifelong learning.
• 😀 Tyler's model uses four key questions to guide curriculum development: purpose, organization, experience, and evaluation.
• 😀 Taba’s curriculum model focuses on the continuous development of the learner, involving teachers in designing experiences that promote critical thinking and abstract skills.
• 😀 Both Tyler and Taba developed linear and prescriptive models, but Taba’s model is more flexible, allowing for adaptation based on student needs.
• 😀 Tyler's model is seen as more efficient and effective for structured learning environments, but it is criticized for being rigid and time-consuming.
• 😀 Taba’s model is praised for promoting higher-order thinking, but its development process can be lengthy and challenging for some student populations.
• 😀 While Tyler’s model is more managerial and objective-driven, Taba’s model is more participatory, focusing on the development of critical thinking and abstract skills.
• 😀 Both curriculum models have had a lasting impact on educational practices, with Tyler's approach being used widely for its clarity and structure, and Taba’s model influencing more progressive, student-centered education.

Q & A

What was Ralph Tyler’s main contribution to curriculum development?

Ralph Tyler's main contribution was the development of the 'Tyler Rationale,' a model for curriculum development that focused on creating clear, measurable objectives aimed at modifying student behavior. His work emphasized efficiency and effectiveness in the educational process.

How did Hilda Taba’s approach to curriculum development differ from Ralph Tyler’s?

Hilda Taba’s approach differed by being more grassroots and inductive. While Tyler's model was linear and prescriptive, focusing on clear goals and structured outcomes, Taba's model emphasized teacher participation and the development of curriculum based on student needs and experiences.

What philosophical influence did both Tyler and Taba share in their curriculum development models?

Both Tyler and Taba were influenced by the pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey, which views education as a means to prepare students for real-life challenges and to promote learning that is relevant to their experiences.

What are the four questions that guide the Tyler Rationale for curriculum development?

The four guiding questions of the Tyler Rationale are: 1) What are the educational goals or purposes? 2) What content or subject matter should be included? 3) How can learning experiences be organized? 4) How should learning outcomes be evaluated?

How did Taba's model approach curriculum development in comparison to Tyler’s?

Taba’s model took a more participatory and inductive approach, emphasizing the role of teachers as co-creators of the curriculum and focusing on developing lifelong learning skills, whereas Tyler’s model was more structured, focusing on achieving clear, measurable objectives through a linear process.

What role did educators play in Taba’s curriculum development model?

In Taba’s model, educators were seen as active participants in the curriculum development process. They were encouraged to collaborate and design curriculum based on the specific needs of their students, rather than strictly adhering to pre-set objectives.

What criticism was directed at the Tyler model of curriculum development?

The Tyler model was criticized for being overly managerial, linear, and restrictive. It was seen as too rigid, focusing on clear objectives without taking into account the diversity of student needs and skills. It also tended to overlook the importance of higher-order thinking skills.

What was one of the key differences between the inductive approach of Taba and the deductive approach of Tyler?

The inductive approach of Taba started from the needs of students and the educational environment, encouraging flexibility and teacher involvement. In contrast, Tyler’s deductive approach followed a structured, goal-oriented process, focusing on achieving specific outcomes through a set sequence of steps.

How did both Tyler and Taba aim to improve the educational experience for students?

Both Tyler and Taba aimed to improve the educational experience by offering frameworks for curriculum development that were grounded in real-world applicability. Tyler focused on clearly defined objectives and evaluation to measure student behavior, while Taba emphasized critical thinking, lifelong learning, and teacher participation in curriculum design.

What impact did Tyler and Taba have on the field of curriculum development?

Tyler’s impact was largely on the formalization of curriculum development through objective-driven models, which continue to shape educational practices today, especially in standardized testing and assessment. Taba’s impact, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of teacher input and the development of critical thinking, influencing more flexible and student-centered curriculum designs.