The Rational Scientific Approach to Curriculum Development
and its Implications for Christian Schools
This essay was written as the minor area comprehensive exam question by Steven L.
DeGeorge, and submitted to West Virginia University, Curriculum and Instruction
Department 10/12/96
Historical Context
The rational scientific approach to curriculum is attributed to a group of pioneers
in systematic curriculum development often referred to simply as the
“traditionalists.” Two of the most notable traditionalists are Hilda Taba and Ralph
Tyler. Tyler and Taba wrote in the fifties and sixties and even though
existentialism was beginning to take hold of the common man in western culture
by then, they represent a view which pre-dates existentialism and subsequent
ideologies such as relativism, neo-Marxism, phenomenology, etc.
Simply put, the rational scientific view holds that there is a body of knowledge
outside the learner which is worth teaching and knowing. This body of knowledge
contains some truths, which will be constant and enduring. They will also be
confluent with truth in general. Furthermore, in this view, knowledge is best
presented in a systematic, practical way, which may respect the traits of the
learner, but is basically content driven. The whole process can then be evaluated
in light of goals attained or not attained. William Schubert refers to this concept of
traditionalism when he writes:
“This belief in the perennial character of the disciplines reflects the central
assumption shared by intellectual traditionalists throughout history; namely, that
great ideas persist because they withstand changing circumstances.”
It could he said that the rational scientific view leans toward the concept of
education as more of a science than an art, is more practical than esoteric, more
objective than subjective This outlook compares favorably to an architect’s view
of art which never strays too far from the science of engineering. In other words
form is always somewhat subservient to function.
Tyler says:
“Curriculum development is a practical enterprise -not a theoretical study. It
endeavors to design a system to achieve an educational end and is not primarily
attempting to explain an existential phenomenon. The system must he designed
to operate effectively in a society where a number of constraints are present and
with human beings who all have purposes, preferences, and dynamic
mechanisms in operation. Hence, an essential early step in curriculum
development is to examine and analyze significant conditions that influence the
construction and operation of the curriculum.” (Tyler, from Schaffarzick and
Hampson, 1975)
This approach to curriculum theory is so closely associated with the work of
Ralph Tyler that it is sometimes referred to simply as the “Tyler Rationale”
(MacDonald and Purpel, 1987) William F. Pinar describes Tyler as “the
traditionalist par excellence” and argues that a weakness in traditionalist theory is
that it is too closely related to practice. He feels that curriculum theorists should
distance themselves from practitioners in order to be emancipated into a new
paradigm. Pinar seems to prefer the reconceptualist view expressed by
Habermas to the traditionalist or rational perspective. (Pinar, 1978)
Hilda Taba is the one who actually puts the terms “rational” and “scientific”
together in her book Curriculum Development She writes:
“One must conclude that the major question about curriculum planning is not
whether to plan or how to plan, but how to do it ‘wisely, scientifically, and on the
basis of rationally recognized facts and considerations, instead of being guided
by an ill—considered mixture of assumptions, beliefs, and personal preferences.
The questions pertain a/so to who plans what, or what to what degree, and in
which order. It is more useful to deal with these questions concretely than to
argue abstractly about planned and unplanned curriculum or a particular fixed
approach to it.” (Taba, 1962)
Taba would quite possibly be shocked at the state of the art just 20 years later as
Ronald J. Silvers describes his course in phenomenology at the Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education:
“Since it is not my understanding that I teach phenomenology— insofar as that
term would refer to students being taught a subject or instructed in a method —
and since I will attempt to formulate what teaching may he, my use of the term
“phenomenology” refers only to my practice of phenomenology in the classroom
setting. What I am teaching is the engagement in self—reflection as an analytic
and hermeneutic movement found in phenomenology. My own relationship to
phenomenology is not to a field as objectified knowledge but to the possibilities of
phenomenological knowing made open to us through the reflective practices of
our inquiry.” (Silvers, 1984, emphasis original)
It would seem that we have come a long way from rationalism to
phenomenology. This is accentuated by the fact that Tyler, Taba, and the other
traditionalists of their day were not only clarifying the rational scientific viewpoint
on the eve of a major paradigm shift, but they were expressing a philosophical
position in their writings that is somewhat of a throwback to historical rational
thought. One might say that their philosophical foundations date back at least to
the 18th century or perhaps further. Some scholars would identify rationalism as
having its roots in the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome. This
historical/philosophical perspective will have significant bearing on a discussion
of Christian schooling.
The Rational Scientific Approach in Christian Schools
The rational scientific view has and will continue to have broad acceptance in
Christian school circles. There are a variety of reasons for this acceptance, some
more legitimate than others. A very legitimate reason for the acceptance of a
rational perspective among Christians is the high component of rational thought
inherent to Christianity. This is not to say that Christianity and rationalism are the
same thing or that purely rational thought is the only component of the Christian
faith. However, when it comes to the basis for truth, reality and knowledge, the
Christian religion has spawned a great deal of rational thinking. Writers on
curriculum recognize that such a philosophical position (or in this case a
theological/philosophical position) will affect one’s view of learning. lanonne and
Obenauf write:
“For example, one who believes that the learner will discover the ultimate reality
through the study of subjects will! have a different view of ontology or reality than
one who believes that reality is tentative and is influenced by the way the learner
reconstructs his human experience and, likewise, these differing views of reality
will influence how one views the nature of knowledge—epistemology. (That is,
one will see knowledge as being based on authority while the other see
knowledge as only knowing those things we come to know through our
experiences.) It then also follows that one‘s view of axiology will be influenced by
one ‘s view of reality and knowledge.” (lanonne and Obenauf, 1984)
In principle, what lanonne and Obenauf are saying is that one’s philosophical
position will influence how one develops curriculum. For this reason, Christians
are more comfortable with the traditional rational perspective than they are with
the more esoteric post-existential positions. In fact, some of the more radical
post-modern ideas along these lines are thought of not only as unsound, but also
as somewhat intellectually dishonest by Christian thinkers. For instance, when
Silvers, in his essay on teaching phenomenology espouses a view of
“existentialism” which “does not bring despair”, he is obviously embracing a view
that life with “no inherent meaning” is acceptable perhaps even desirable.
(Silvers, 1984) This would be in direct conflict with the Judeo-Christian
perspective that being created by God gives both essence and meaning to
human life.
Christians obviously find the idea of life without inherent meaning unacceptable.
In dealing with this or other streams of post-modern thought they often retreat to
a traditional position in a reactionary or defensive posture. This unfortunately,
does not do justice to the full understanding of a Christian worldview. There are
elements of both modern and post-modern thought, which have a legitimate
place in the Christian perspective. These would include transcendence,
individuality, existential experience and phenomenology. It would be an injustice
to true Christian education to limit it to a purely rational perspective. MacDonald
and Purpel address this point by making reference to the work of Peter Burger.
Burger, in his book A Rumor of Angels, points out five traits common to all
human beings that are primarily religious. He refers to them as “signals of
transcendence.” The context in which MacDonald and Purpel quote Burger is
that there is cause for a significant religious critique of the “rational planning
approach” due simply to the fact that it is “linear.” (MacDonald and Purpel, 1987)
Giroux, in expressing his ideas of “radical pedagogy” describes teachers as
“transformative intellectuals.” (Giroux. 1985) This should strike a resonant cord
with Christian educators, because Christianity, if it is anything, is transformative.
Furthermore, the transformative nature of Christianity has always involved the
interaction and experiences of individuals.
Another reason for the broad acceptance of the rational scientific model among
Christian schools is a matter of practicality rather than philosophy or even
theology. This relates to the fact that since the 1970’s there has been a surge in
the development of Christian schools. So many new Christian schools have
sprung up all over the United States that there is a certain self-consciousness,
which is attributable to the immaturity of the movement. This has caused the
Christian school movement to take on the trait of “having something to prove”
which naturally lends itself to methods and strategies, which are quantifiable.
While this is not a sound reason for embracing the rational scientific approach to
curriculum development, it is a reality in the current Christian school movement.
Christian scholars would do well to consider the full scope of Christian thought
when reacting to or developing a set of curricular theories. Elizabeth Valance, in
her article “The Practical Uses of Curriculum Theory,” makes a good point that is
applicable to this discussion:
Education is of course both a science and an art which is
problematic for theory builders. It is difficult to develop rules and
principles which apply’ equally to both aspects. (Valance, 1980)
Summary
In summary, it could be said that there are significant features of the rational
scientific approach to curriculum, which make it compatible with Christianity,
particularly in the areas of epistemology and ontology. However, there is more to
the Christian world-view and to Christian curriculum theory than can be
expressed within the confines of a linear rational system. As the contemporary
Christian school movement matures, scholars need to look beyond the
boundaries of reactionism, open a broad dialogue, and move on with both the art
and the science of curriculum theory.
Bibliography
Giroux, Henry A.; “Critical Thinking and the Politics of Culture and Voice:
Rethinking the Discourse of Educational Research,” Qualitative Research in
Education 1984, pp. 191-209.
lanonne, Ron and Obenauf, Pat; “A Set of Criteria for Curriculum Theorizing;”
Curriculum Perspective, Vol. 4, No. 1, May, 1984, PP. 61-65.
MacDonald. James B. and Purpel, David E.; “Curriculum and Planning: Visions
and Metaphors;” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Winter, 1987, Vol. 2, No.
2, pp. 178-192.
Pinar, William F.; “Notes on the Curriculum Field 1978;” Division B, State-of-theArt Address, 1978 AERA Annual Meeting; September, 1978, pp.5-12.
Schubert, William H.; “Curriculum Research Controversy: A Special Case of a
General Problem;” Review Journal of Philosophy and Science 1985, pp. 2 16235.
Silvers, Ronald J., “Teaching Phenomenology;” Phenomenology and Pedagogy,
Vol. 2, No. 1, 1984, pp. 18-28.
Taba, Hilda; Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice New York, Harcourt
Brace and World Inc.; 1962, p. 444.
Tyler. Ralph; “Specific Approaches to Curriculum Development;” Strategies for
Curriculum Development, eds. Jon Schaffarzick and David H. Hampson;
Berkeley, Ca., McCutchan, 1975, pp. 17-33.
Tyler, Ralph; Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago, The
University of Chicago Press; 1949.
Valance, Elizabeth; “The Practical Uses of Curriculum Theory;” Theory into
Practice Vol. 21, No. 1, 1980, pp. 4-10.