تحلیلی بر منطق تایلر در برنامه ریزی درسی: مضامین موجه و مغفول
محورهای موضوعی : روانشناسی تربیتیرحمتاله خسروی 1 , منصوره کافی‌زاده 2
1 - دانشجوی دکتری مطالعات برنامه‌ریزی درسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس
2 - کارشناس ارشد برنامه‌ریزی درسی
کلید واژه: برنامه‌ریزی درسی, منطق تایلر, مضامین موجه, مضامین مغفول,
چکیده مقاله :
دیرپاترین صورت‌بندی نظری در قلمرو برنامه درسی "منطق تایلر" است که در کتاب معروف "اصول اساسی برنامه درسی و آموزش" منعکس شده است. این مقاله که با روش تحلیلی انجام شده، در صدد پاسخگویی به دو سؤال محوری است: 1) چه مضامینی از منطق تایلر هنوز هم موجه و قابل اعتناست؟ 2) مضامین مغفول این منطق کدامند؟ در این راستا ویژگی‌ها و عناصر اساسی منطق تایلر از قبیل اهداف آموزشی؛ منابع تعیین اهداف (فراگیران، جامعه و متخصصان موضوعات درسی)؛ انتخاب، سازمان‌دهی و ارزشیابی تجارب یادگیری؛ و نوع الگوی برنامه درسی مورد مطالعه و تفسیر قرار می‌گیرد. آنچه مقاله حاضر را متمایز می‌سازد، بهره‌گیری از مصاحبه‌های تایلر برای فهم بهتر منطق او می‌باشد.
The most longstanding theoretical formulation in the realm of curriculum is "Tyler rationale" that is reflected in the famous book of "Basic principles of curriculum and instruction". This article that performed with analytical method seeks to answer two central questions: 1) what contents of the Tyler rationale are still justifiable and reliable? 2) What are neglected subjects in the rationale? In this regard, features and elements of the Tyler rationale such as educational objectives; sources for setting educational objectives (learners, society, and subject matter specialists); selecting, organizing, and evaluating learning experiences; and the type of curriculum model was studied and interpreted. What distinguishes the present paper is use of Tyler interviews for better understanding his rationale.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research. Lewes, Falmer.
Cordero, G. & García Garduño, J. M. (2004). The Tylerian curriculum model and the reconceptualists. Interview with Ralph W. Tyler (1902-1994). Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 6 (2).
Cronbach, L. (1986). Tyler’s contributions of the Eight Year Study. Journal of Thought, 21, 47-52.
Doll, Jr., W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, E. (1994). Educational imagination: on the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: MacMillan.
Garcia Garduno, J. M.(1995). La Consolidacion de la teoria curricular en los Estados Unidos(1912-1949). Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 25(2) 57-81.
Glanz, J., & Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (Eds.). (2000). Paradigm debates in curriculum and supervision: Modern and postmodern perspectives. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Goodlad, J. (1966). “The Development of a Conceptual System for Dealing with Problems of Curriculum and Instruction,” U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 454 (Los Angeles: Institute for the Development of Educational Activities, UCLA).
Henderson, J. G. (1995). Transformative curriculum leadership. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Merrill.
Hlebowitsh, P.S(1992). Amid behavioural and behavioristic objectives: Reappraising appraisals of the Tyler Rationale. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 24(6), pp(533-547).
Hlebowitsh, P.S(1995). Interpretations of the Tyler Rationale: A reply to Kliebard. Journal of Curriculum Studies.27(1), pp(89-94).
Jackson, P. W. (1992). Concepts of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In In Jackson, P. W. (1992) (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 3-40). New York: Macmillan.
Kliebard, H M. (1970). Reappraisal: The Tyler Rationale, School Review, 78(2), 259–272.
Kridel, C., & Bullough, Jr., R. V. (2007). Stories of the Eight- Year Study. New York: State University of New York Press.
Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum alternative approaches, ongoing issues (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Marshall, J. D., Sears, J. T., & Schubert, W. H. (2000). Turning points in curriculum. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hill, Inc.
McNeil, J. D. (1990). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction (4th Ed.). Glenview, ILL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Pinar, W. F. (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualist. Berkeley, CA: McCutchen.
Pinar, W. F. (1978). Notes on the curriculum field 1978. Educational Researcher, 7(8), 5-12.
Pinar, W. F., & Grumet (1981). Theory and practice and the reconceptualization of curriculum studies. In M. Lawn & L. Barton (Eds.), Rethinking curriculum studies: a radical approach (pp. 20-44). London: Croom Helm.
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. (1970). Establishing instructional goals. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ridings, J. (1981, November). An interview with Ralph Tyler [Occasional papers, No. 13]. Retrieved May 15, 2004 from the web site of Western Michigan University, Evaluation Center.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: MacMillan.
Schubert, W., & Schubert, A. L. L. (1986). A dialog with Ralph Tyler. Journal of Thought, 21(1), 91–118.
Shane, Harold G. (1981). Significant writings that have influenced the curriculum: 1906-81. Phi Delta Kappan, 62(5), 311-314.
Tanner, D. (1982). Curriculum history. In H.E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encylopedia of educational research (pp. 412-420). New York: Macmillian and Free Press.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum development theory into practice (3rd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wraga, W. G. (1998).‘Interesting, if true’: Historical perspectives on the ‘reconceptualization’ of curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(1), 5–28.
