In regards to my personal education and schooling, I believe that the Tyler rationale played a pretty vital role. Looking back, I believed that it was embedded into almost all aspects of my schooling. My education was primarily evaluation and measurement based. We learned the material in essentially only lecture-based settings at our own individual desks facing forward towards the teacher who held the authority. I now realize how traditional of a method this is. My education lacked the curriculum as a process aspect to teaching. Not much evaluation or credit was given for the work put into an assignment, only the quality of the final project.
Were we molded and made more efficient like the Frederick Taylor Industrial Movement?
Some basic limitations of the Tyler Rationale are that it constricts and binds students to this cookie cutter mold. It only accepts and acknowledges students that excel in tested settings when in reality, not everyone’s strengths are based on evaluation. Many individuals excel and do their best work in the process of it all, but that is not acknowledged in this traditional school sense.
I feel that this rationale inhibits creativity. No students is required to think at a higher level or urged outside of their comfort zone. Having time limits and a large focus on the end product can be very constricting to the creative process. Why urge people to leave creativity at the door? Does Tyler not appreciate aesthetics and innovation?
Do we really want our children to be blind to the creative and aesthetic aspects of the educational process?
There are in fact some possible benefits of the Tyler rationale. For the individuals that do work well in an evaluation type setting, they would thrive, prosper and do very well throughout their education. Also, using this rationale is nice for outlining what is needed of students and the end goal. Especially for myself, I like to know what I will be learning and planning ahead. This rationale is ideal for learners of this nature.