Editorial

Abstract

We write curriculum documents that are full of good intentions – ambitious musical aims, the highest educational aspirations and holistic principles that place the learner at the centre. Yet, in many ways, curriculum writing is an exercise in asserting control of what and how we might teach. The notion of the intended curriculum, that is, explicit goals to determine the outcome of learning, has its roots in what became known as the Tyler Rationale and has continued to influence curriculum inquiry, planning, development, test construction and learning outcomes to the present day (Schubert, 2008). In Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Ralph Tyler (1949) formulated a deceptively simple structure that has guided curriculum developers and researchers for over fifty years. This entailed: (i) Defining appropriate learning objectives, (ii) Introducing useful learning experiences, (iii) Organising experiences to maximise their effect; and (iv) Evaluating the process and revising the areas that were not effective. According to Schubert (2008), many curriculum scholars and developers ignored several other aspects of Tyler's work and many of his other recommendations were lost in the tendency to follow his curriculum ‘recipe’ in schools, state departments or ministries of education. What Tyler had argued was that perspectives be sought from other philosophical and psychological positions, and that the influences of society, the individual, and other disciplines also be considered. He also believed that learning experiences were more important than activities or content. Moreover, he asserted that non-school experiences of students and their active social lives were also worthy of study and finally, he believed that the four steps in his model should not be used in the order presented in his text, but according to situation need. However, only the bones of Tyler's message survived while his more embodied emphasis on careful attention to context and nuance in student lives was overlooked in the process (Schubert, 2008).