Search two 

outstanding personalities in the cluster of Curriculum Foundations who

contributed to curriculum development. 
Write their biographies.
Give your personal reaction. 
Do not fail to include a list of references.

Let’s begin with two foundational works on curriculum, one by Ralph Tyler and the other
by Jerome Bruner. These provide a good beginning, not only because they were among
the first books on curriculum to be published but because the ideas they contain have
been among the most enduring. Indeed, they continue to provide the foundation for our
most current thinking in curriculum development.

Ralph Tyler

Ralph Tyler (1902-1994) is regarded as one of the foremost educators of the 20th century and is
considered by many to be “the grand old man of educational research” (Stanford News Service,
1994). He is often associated with educational assessment and evaluation as well as curriculum
theory and development. Although he "wouldn't have seen himself as an instructional
technologist or learning scientist, his ideas have sharply influenced our ideas" (Belland, 2011).

Tyler made contributions to the field of instructional design throughout his lifetime. Shortly after
he graduated from college in Nebraska he was hired as a high school math teacher in South
Dakota. Later, while completing work on a Master’s Degree, Tyler wrote a science test for
students that revealed holes in testing methods which emphasized memory skills as opposed to
understanding of concepts. The holes he discovered during this time would be a problem he
would study for life. Tyler emphasized the "need for educational objectives to go beyond mere
memorization and regurgitation” (Libbi, 2009). He saw the importance of students being able to
demonstrate a knowledge of the things they had learned.

After receiving his PhD from the University of Chicago in 1927, Tyler directed and was head of
evaluation for a groundbreaking study known as The Eight-Year Study (1933-41). One of the
important findings that emerged from this study was the establishment of “the importance of
evaluation in designing and implementing curricula” (Stanford News Service, 1994).

Tyler published Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction in 1949. The book, containing
theories about curriculum reform, was a best-seller and continues to shape curriculum and
instructional design today (answers.com). In his book, Tyler described a four-part method of
delivering and evaluating instruction known as the Tyler Rationale (detailed below).
Tyler also helped develop that National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the
1960’s. Up until that time, there was no comprehensive data that measured and evaluated the
educational system in the United States.

Tyler’s contributions to policy and practice in public education set him apart as one of the most
influential figures in American public education, most notably in the area of curriculum
development and testing.

In order to understand Tyler's position in the historical context of education, it is key to

recognize what Hlebowitsh refers to as the historical triangulation (Hlebowitsh, 2005). Much of
what Tyler embraced and later practiced was heavily shaped by his mentor at the University of
Chicago, Franklin Bobbit. Later, Tyler sought to tutor Joseph Schwab in much the same way,
though Schwab is often seen as the dissenter of the group, and has been considered by some as
a reconceptualist of many of his progenitors' views. Tyler, however, remained true to the ideal of
seeking to create an approach that could be applied judiciously to improve educational
assessment, and specify teaching strategies according to institutional need. It also urged that
schools have a greater role in developing their own curricula, rather than have it "handed down
from above." (Stanford News Service, 1994).

Though the field has often turned to this titan for the sake of better instruction, evaluation, and
implementation, some have been critical of his approach:

"He is especially important to the reconceptualist critique because he is viewed as the good son
who modernized social efficiency schemes by continuing to put a premium on the normative,
and by detailing a new instrumentality for curriculum development conceived around behavioral
objectives and testing mechanisms. Reconceptualists, notably Pinar, believed that Tyler’s
rationale was the quintessential social efficiency achievement—not much more than a
management device designed to stifle teacher creativity and to close the discretionary space for
teacher judgment in the classroom. In this sense, Bobbitt’s generational principles are viewed as
succeeding seamlessly into a second generation of curriculum development commandeered and
modernized by Tyler" (Hlebowitsh, 2005, p. 75).

Although a divergence emerged due to Schwab's criticisms, it can be stated that all 3 members of
this important pedigree shared a common goal. As Jackson observed, all three (Bobbitt, Tyler,
and Schwab) sought to “help practitioners who wanted to improve the curriculum of the school
in which they work” (Jackson, 1992, p. 30).

Ralph Tyler was often said to have been a genius in the fields of curriculum development and
assessment (Rubin, 1994). His contributions were numerous and significant, and include as
stated above, his participation in the famous Eight Year Study. During the depression, when
unemployment kept student-age youth out of the work force, enrollment in high schools
increased dramatically. However, as opposed to previously typical high school students who
were heading for college, these students were here because there was no place else to be. They
weren’t necessarily college-bound and the nation started realizing that curriculum needed to be
altered to fit the needs of this population. The Eight Year Study released 30 high schools from
curriculum requirements in order for them to develop a more appropriate curriculum for current
high school students. They were required to show student progress through test scores
throughout the study. However, there wasn’t a test that fit what the innovative educators were
trying to teach (Nowakowski, 1983).

At that time Tyler was working for Ohio State, working with faculty and the public schools and
helping them revise their system of assessment. He is said to have pioneered the use of the
term “evaluation” as it applies to education and was beginning to open the eyes of the
educational community to the need for a scientific connection of assessments to educational
objectives. He reports that as opposed to paper pencil tests of memorized facts, evaluation
refers to “investigating what students are actually learning” (Nowakowski, 1983). That work lead
him to the position of head of the evaluation staff in the Eight Year Study, the results of which
lead, in part, to his famous publication, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction which was
printed in 36 editions. In his book, which began as a course syllabus, he outlines four basic
principles of delivering curriculum and evaluating learning that have become known as ‘The Tyler
Rationale’ (Miller, 1995).

The four principles include:

1. Defining appropriate learning objectives.

2. Establishing useful learning experiences.

3. Organizing learning experiences to have a maximum cumulative effect.

4. Evaluating the curriculum and revising those aspects that did not prove to be effective.

Tyler believed that learning should be meaningful to the student and his community, that it
should be taught through appropriately designed and organized learning experiences, and that
learning should be evaluated not only to see what students are really learning, but to see what
changes might need to be made to the curriculum.

His rationale continues to be the foundation for many aspects of curriculum design and
evaluation. His emphasis on knowing our students and meeting the needs of diverse learners is
still very applicable. His influence also continues to be seen in the development of learning
objectives and their connection to assessment. As a behavioral psychologist, his contribution to
learning sciences (although he wouldn’t have seen his input as such) continues to have an impact
in spite of controversy and criticism over some aspects of his theories. One example of
misinterpretation of his intent comes from his triadic approach to the best method of selecting
educational objectives, which includes the student, the society and the academic subject itself.
Tyler proposed this approach as a balanced means of selecting appropriate aims. However some
critics interpreted this system as a prescribed “formula” or “structure” for developing a
curriculum which was counter to Tyler’s premise (Antonelli, 1972). While the very nature of
scholarly theory and models invites criticism, discredit and interpretation, it is widely accepted
that the Tyler Rationale, along with his other contributions to education put Ralph Tyler in a
position to be a key figure in education, even the “father of curriculum evaluation” (Pinar, 1999,
p. 95).

In addition to his curriculum expertise, many contributions stemmed from his positions of
leadership in many educational organizations, including Director of the Cooperative Study of the
American Council on Education, director of the Examinations Staff, United States Armed Forces
Institute and founding director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He
also advised six presidents of the United States on educational issues (Miller, 1995). In addition,
he was a member of the Society for Curriculum Study, which later evolved into the current
ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) (Meek, 1993).

While serving as the director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Tyler
was appointed as chair of the new Exploratory Committee on Assessing the Progress of
Education (ECAPE). In that capacity, as stated above, he helped develop what became the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, which has continued to this day and is widely
known as the Nation’s Report Card (Vinovskis, 1998).

Many educational associations strongly opposed his proposal, fearing everything from too much
government control over curriculum to unfair comparisons of evaluation results among states
and educational agencies. Plans were eased back and implemented slowly with much promotion
by Tyler and others to alleviate or at least reduce the fears that stoked the criticism of the plan
(Vinovskis, 1998). Tyler and other developers assured educators that the program was aimed
only at providing general data on the health of the American education system, not on specific
agencies or even states (Jones, 1996).

Ralph Tyler spent seven decades in the service of American education. One value that hasn’t
incited criticism or opposition during those years was his commitment to recognizing and helping
to bring out the talent in others. He had an innate ability to see and cultivate potential. It was
said of him that, “He repeatedly extended a helping hand …and a nurturing spirit… to those who
showed promise” (Rubin, 1994, p. 785). His ideas continue to impact education in all its domains
and fields, including instructional technology/learning sciences. John Goodlad, a former student
and Professor Emeritus of Education at the University of Washington was quoted as saying, "In
regard to public policy and educational research in the field of curriculum and evaluation, he was
for the last several decades of this century what John Dewey was for the first part of this
century." (Miller, 1995, p. 11).

Jerome Bruner
Jerome Bruner was an American psychologist, researcher, and educator. He made key
contributions in a number of areas, including memory, learning, perception, and cognition.
Bruner spearheaded the “cognitive revolution” and his work led to significant changes in the
American school system. The American Psychological Association (APA) ranks Bruner as the
28th most eminent psychologist of the 20th century.

Jerome Seymour Bruner was born on October 1, 1915 in New York City. His parents, Herman
Bruner and Rose Gluckman Bruner, were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Jerome was the
youngest of three children in the family. His older sisters were Min and Alice. He also had an
older half brother named Adolf.

Bruner was born blind because of cataracts. When he was two years old, he had an experimental
operation to remove the cataracts and this restored his vision. However, his poor eyesight meant
he had to wear thick eyeglasses throughout his life. Although Bruner did not have vivid
memories of being blind, he believed the experience may have affected his attachment to his
parents.

Bruner’s father worked as a watch manufacturer and operated a watchmaking company. His
mother was a homemaker and focused on raising the children. Bruner was raised on the
southern shore of Long Island and enjoyed spending time by the sea. He had a couple of close
friends, with whom he sometimes went rowing or sailing. Bruner described himself as “quite a
shy, geeky boy,” who was very different from his confident, outgoing older sister Alice.

When Bruner was 12 years old, his father Herman died from liver cancer. Although Herman sold
the watchmaking company to Bulova before he died and left the family with money, the loss was
severely felt. Bruner’s mother, Rose, was deeply affected and never really got over it.

Shortly after her husband died, Rose moved the family from Long Island to Florida. However, it
took a while for them to get settled. Bruner and his siblings moved every year as Rose, likely
overwhelmed with grief, went through a period of wandering. As a result, Bruner attended a
series of high schools as a teenager.

Bruner believed that the communication within his family changed after his father died. His
family members were no longer as intimate as they were before. The communication issues
increased when Alice got married young and left to start her own family. These experiences may
have influenced Bruner to become a more self-sufficient and rebellious person later in life.

Educational Background

After Bruner graduated from high school, he enrolled at Duke University. While at Duke, he was
taught by William McDougall—a renowned British psychologist. McDougall was known to be an
opposer of behaviorism (the dominant school of thought at the time) and encouraged Bruner to
think beyond “stimulus and response.” Bruner earned his bachelor’s degree in psychology and
graduated from Duke in 1937.

When Bruner decided to leave Duke to further his studies, McDougall encouraged him to go
anywhere except Harvard. So Bruner, a rebel at heart, immediately registered at Harvard
University. Some of his professors at Harvard included Henry Murray, Gordon Allport, Smitty
Stevens, and Edwin Boring. Bruner earned his master’s degree in psychology in 1939 and his
PhD in psychology in 1941.

Shortly after receiving his doctoral degree, Bruner tried to join the United States military. He
wanted to fight in World War II, but his application was rejected because of his poor eyesight.
Instead, he was drafted into the Office for Strategic Studies (OSS)—a US military intelligence
agency. Bruner was a part of the OSS staff that worked with members of the US Office of War
Information (OWI) and the British Political Warfare Executive (PWE) to form the Psychological
Warfare Division (PWD) of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force. Bruner’s
assignments included working with wartime propaganda, studying foreign radio broadcasts and
following the invasion force to France to investigate which liberated French villages could be
trusted.
When World War II ended in 1945, Bruner returned to Harvard as a faculty member. For most of
the late 1940s, he and Leo Postman conducted research on how needs, motivations, and
expectations affect perception. Bruner also became more involved in cognitive psychology and
specifically, the cognitive development of children. He eventually became a professor of
psychology at Harvard in 1952.

Bruner’s interest in the US school system grew in the late 1950s. After attending a ten day
meeting of scholars and educators in 1959, he published the landmark book The Process of
Education in 1960. This book sparked many educational programs and experiments during the
1960s. Bruner was asked to join a number of committees and panels, including the President’s
Advisory Panel of Education for both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

In 1960, Bruner co-founded the Harvard Center for Cognitive Studies. His research focused on
cognition and helped to end the dominance of behaviorism in psychological research in America.
He also served as the president of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1965.

Bruner left Harvard in 1972 to teach at Oxford University in England. To get to England, he
sailed his boat across the Atlantic Ocean. While at Oxford, he conducted research on children’s
language. Bruner returned to the United States in 1980 when he accepted a position at The New
School in New York City. He joined the staff at New York University in 1991 where he taught
primarily at the NYU School of Law.

Bruner’s theory of cognitive development deals with how knowledge is stored or represented in
memory. He proposed three modes of representation, the first of which develops in infancy with
the other two gradually emerging later. Although these ways of thinking evolve in stage-like
progression, we do not abandon them as we move from one phase of development to another.
All three modes of representation are interconnected and utilized in adulthood. The three modes
are as follows:

Enactive (0-1 yr) – In their first year of life, babies learn primarily by doing. As they interact with
their environment through physical actions such as tasting, touching, moving and grasping,
enactive representations are formed. Knowledge is stored as a series of motor responses or what
we commonly refer to as ‘muscle memory.’ For example, infants may store the movements
involved in shaking a rattle or holding a bottle. When the memory is retrieved, the movement is
recreated. Adults also make use of this form of representation when they engage in motor tasks
such as riding a bicycle, driving, typing, or playing a musical instrument.

Iconic (1-7 yrs) – As children get older, they develop the ability to store knowledge in the form of
mental images or icons. These images may be based on visual, auditory or other sensory inputs.
When we use pictures, maps, diagrams and videos to aid learning, we are making use of the
iconic mode.

Symbolic (7 yrs onwards) – This is the last mode of representation to develop. It involves storing
information in the form of abstract symbols rather than images. Two of the most commonly used
symbols are words and numbers. The symbolic mode allows for information to be summarized
and more easily manipulated. Greater flexibility and complexity of thought therefore become
possible. Most adult thought is stored in the symbolic mode.

Discovery Learning
Not only did Bruner theorize about cognitive development, he also wrote extensively about the
process of learning. He strongly believed that children should be active participants in the
learning process, rather than passive recipients of knowledge. He promoted the idea of discovery
learning in which children learn through engagement, experimentation, and exploration.

From Bruner’s standpoint, the objective of instruction should be to help learners become self-
sufficient in problem solving. Rather than transmitting pre-packaged facts and explanations,
teachers should function as facilitators, helping students to discover principles for themselves.
This means that teachers would give learners access to necessary information without organizing
it for them. The students would sort the information for themselves, discovering in the process
the relationships between different concepts and ideas.

A teacher interested in applying these principles might present pupils with a puzzling situation or
interesting question, such as: ‘Why does the flame go out when a burning candle is covered by a
glass jar?’ Instead of giving students the answer, the teacher might present them with materials
they can use to investigate the problem on their own. Learners become like little scientists,
making observations, suggesting hypotheses based on previous knowledge and then testing
them.

Bruner’s approach to learning has been called a constructivist approach since it involves the
learner actively constructing new ideas based on past and current experiences. The learner
attaches meaning to new information based on what they already know. Bruner believed
knowledge acquired in this way is better retained than information that is simply passed down
from an instructor.

The Spiral Curriculum

Unlike Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, Bruner did not believe that children have to
reach a particular age or maturational level in order to grasp certain concepts. Instead, he argued
that any subject matter, including complex concepts, can be presented in a form that is simple
enough for a learner at any age to understand. He is famously quoted as saying, “any subject can
be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of
development.”

In line with this view, Bruner advocated a spiral curriculum in which the same subject matter is
taught at various levels with increasing depth and breadth. At first, only basic principles are
presented but as the learner advances to higher levels of education, the subject is revisited with
additional details being presented. Learning therefore takes place in a spiral fashion with the
learner continually building on what he or she has already learned.

Bruner believed learning is most effective when material is presented in sequence from enactive
(using manipulatives), to iconic (using illustrations and diagrams), to symbolic (using language and
other symbols). For example, complex concepts such as the addition of fractions can be taught in
enactive form to very young children using tangible fraction circles. As children mature, the other
modes of representation can be employed to teach more complex aspects of the topic.

Jerome Bruner’s Scaffolding Theory

Jerome Bruner also advocated a process known as scaffolding, in which adults provide ongoing
support as children attempt to solve a problem or master a task they are not quite able to
manage on their own. The adult provides temporary assistance to maximize the child’s growth.

Just as how a literal scaffold temporarily supports the building of a tall structure. Adults can
provide a scaffold in various ways, for example by:

helping children to maintain interest in the task at hand

drawing their attention to important bits of information they might have overlooked

Breaking down complex tasks into smaller, more manageable ones

modeling certain aspects of a skill to be learned

explaining unfamiliar terms

highlighting errors

providing prompts or hints

The aim of scaffolding is to provide just enough support so that the child is able to improve his
knowledge, move on to the next stage of the task and arrive at a solution for himself. The
assistance provided must be continually adjusted to meet the changing needs of the learner. At
first, the child may be very dependent on the support of the adult but as he or she acquires the
relevant skills and knowledge, the support can be gradually decreased and withdrawn completely
over time.

Applications of Bruner’s Theories

Many aspects of Bruner’s theories have found application in the field of education, influencing
both policy and curriculum design. Some schools, such as those in Singapore, have adopted a C-
P-A (concrete-pictoral-abstract) approach to teaching subjects such as mathematics and science.
Teachers who follow this approach introduce topics using concrete materials before progressing
to visual and then abstract representations. This is in line with Bruner’s belief that instruction
should move sequentially from enactive to iconic to symbolic modes of representation.

Bruner’s concept of the spiral curriculum has also influenced the educational philosophy of
schools in several countries, including China and the United States. In these schools, the same
topics are revisited periodically across several grades. Teachers make a deliberate effort to
connect new information with previous knowledge, building on what the learner already knows
in order to deepen understanding.

Scaffolding is another aspect of Bruner’s theories which some teachers have tried to implement
in the classroom. The concept has also been applied to peer-to-peer learning, with more
advanced students assisting weaker peers.

Criticisms of Bruner’s Theories

Although Bruner’s concepts have greatly contributed to education policy in several countries,
critics have raised doubts regarding the practicality of some of his ideas. For example, while
scaffolding and spiraling offer several advantages to the learner, their effectiveness depends
greatly on how knowledgeable teachers are. In the case of scaffolding, teachers must know when
to intervene, when to step back and how to motivate effectively. They must also be aware of
each child’s changing needs, which can be difficult in a large classroom where the teacher is not
able to monitor each child’s progress individually.

For spiraling to be effective, teachers must also be familiar with the child’s existing knowledge
base. If teachers repeat or re-teach information that students already know, they run the risk of
students losing interest in the topic.On the other hand, if teachers wrongly assume that students
remember the fundamental concepts of a topic taught in previous grades, they may frustrate
learners when more advanced concepts are introduced.

Discovery learning also presents challenges in the classroom since misconceptions sometimes
arise among students as they attempt to construct meaning for themselves. These
misconceptions may go undetected by teachers, especially in larger settings. Discovery learning
also requires large amounts of resources which may not be readily available in some schools. It
can also be a challenge to implement this form of learning in settings where behavior
management is a problem.

Other critics note that discovery learning may not be suitable for students who prefer a more
traditional approach to teaching and learning. As some have pointed out, there is no evidence to
show that all students are effective at creating meaning on their own. Some students prefer
structure and become frustrated when the demands of a task are not clear.

One of Bruner’s foremost critics, David Ausubel, further argued that young children in particular
need direct instruction and that the volume of information to be learned at school leaves little
time for discovery. Other critics agree with Ausubel, noting that a child-centered, process-
oriented approach might not be ideal when teaching basic skills such as reading and writing.
Research also suggests that when teaching students with learning difficulties, a direct approach
is more effective for introducing new information and skills.

Some critics have also taken issue with Bruner’s claim that any subject matter can be taught at
any age in some ‘honest form.’ These critics argue that children need to achieve a certain level of
maturity in order to handle some concepts. Bruner himself criticized his own claim over his
failure to explain what he meant by the term ‘honest.’

Jerome Bruner’s Books, Awards, and Accomplishments

Bruner authored or co-authored many scholarly papers and several bestselling books throughout
his long career. Some of his most significant works are listed below.

Books:

Mandate from the People (1944)

A Study of Thinking (1956)

The Process of Education (1960)

On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand (1962)

Toward a Theory of Instruction (1966)

Processes of Cognitive Growth: Infancy (1968)

The Relevance of Education (1971)

Communication as Language (1982)

Child’s Talk (1983)

In Search of Mind: Essays in Autobiography, 1983

Actual Minds, Possible Worlds (1986)

Acts of Meaning (1990)

The Culture of Education (1996)

Minding the Law (2000)

Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life (2002).

Jerome Bruner has received twenty-four honorary doctoral degrees from established universities
around the world. Some of these institutions include:

Harvard University

Yale University

Columbia University

Northwestern University

Free University of Berlin

University of Geneva

University of California, Berkeley

The New School

National University of Rosario

ISPA – Instituto Universitário

The Sorbonne

Temple University

North Michigan University

Bruner was also given several awards for his contributions to the field of psychology. A few of
these awards include:
Distinguished Scientific Award from the American Psychological Association

Distinguished Contributions to Research in Education Award from the American Educational

Research Association

International Balzan Prize

CIBA Gold Medal for Distinguished Research

Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Personal Life

Jerome Bruner met his first wife, Katherine Frost, at Harvard. The couple had a son named
Whitley and a daughter named Jane. However, Bruner and Katherine divorced after he returned
from Europe at the close of World War II. Bruner’s second marriage to Blanche Ames Marshall
also ended in divorce. His third wife, Carol Feldman, passed away in 2006.

Is Jerome Bruner Still Alive?

Jerome Bruner died on Sunday June 5, 2016 at his Greenwich Village loft in Manhattan. He was
100 years old. He is survived by his partner Dr. Eleanor Fox, his two children, and three
grandchildren.

References

American Psychological Association. (2002). Eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Monitor
on Psychology, 33 (7) 29. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/eminent

Association for Psychological Science. (2016, December 20). Remembering Jerome Bruner.
Observer. Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/remembering-
jerome-bruner

Aubrey, K., & Riley, A. (2019). Understanding and using educational theories (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Carey, B. (2016, June 8). Jerome S. Bruner, who shaped understanding of the young mind, dies at
100. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/science/jerome-s-bruner-who-shaped-understanding-
of-the-young-mind-dies-at-100.html

Crace, J. (2007, March 27). Jerome Bruner: The lesson of the story. The Guardian. Retrieved
from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/mar/27/academicexperts.highereducationprofil
e
Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). Jerome Bruner. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jerome-Bruner

Harvard University. (n.d.). Jerome Bruner. Retrieved from

https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/jerome-bruner

NYU Law News. (2010, November 4). Jerome Bruner receives honorary doctorate at
international psychology congress in Argentina. Retrieved from
https://www.law.nyu.edu/news/BRUNER_DEGREE_ARGENTINA

NYU Law News. (2016, June 6). In memoriam: Jerome Bruner, 1915-2016. Retrieved from
https://www.law.nyu.edu/news/in-memoriam-jerome-bruner

Rich, G. J. (2013). Bruner, Jerome S. Retrieved from

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp065

Schudel, M. (2016, June 7). Jerome S. Bruner, influential psychologist of perception, dies at 100.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/jerome-s-
bruner-influential-psychologist-of-perception-dies-at-100/2016/06/07/033e5870-2cc3-11e6-
9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html

Social Psychology Network. (2008, November 14). Jerome Bruner: In memoriam. Retrieved from
https://bruner.socialpsychology.org/

Tassoni, P., & Beith, K. (2005). Diploma in child care and education. Jordan Hill, Oxford:
Heinemann Educational Publishers.

Westwood, P. (2004). Learning and learning difficulties: A handbook for teachers. Camberwell,
Victoria: ACER Press.

References

Antonelli, G. A. (1972). Ralph W. Tyler: The man and his work. Peabody Journal of Education,
50(1), 68-74.

Belland, B. (2011). Quote from instruction of USU INST6310 course.

Hlebowitsh, P. S. (2005). Generational Ideas in Curriculum: A Historical Triangulation. Curriculum

Inquiry, 35(1), 73-87. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Jackson, P. W. (1992). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. InHandbook of

research on curriculum, ed. Philip W. Jackson, 3–40. New York: Macmillan.

Jones, L. V. (1996). A history of the national assessment of educational progress and some
questions about its future. Educational Researcher, 25(7), 15-22.

Libbi, F. (2009, July 05). Ralph Tyler curriculum design [Web log message]. Retrieved from
http://curriculumevaluation09.blogspot.com/2009/07/ralph-tyler-curriculum-design.html
Meek, A. (1993). On setting the highest standards: A conversation with Ralph Tyler. Educational
Leadership, 50(6), 83-86.

Miller, J. G. (1995). Ralph Winfred Tyler. Behavioral Science, 40(1), 7-14.

Nowakowski, J. R. (1983). On educational evaluation: A conversation with Ralph Tyler.

Educational Leadership, 40(8), 24-29.

Pinar, W. (1999). Contemporary curriculum discourses: Twenty years of JCT. New York: Peter
Lang Publishing, Inc.

Ralph Tyler's little book. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.coedu.usf.edu/agents/dlewis/publications/tyler.com

Ralph W. Tyler. Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_W._Tyler

Ralph W. Tyler. Answers.com. Retrieved from http://www.answers.com/topic/ralph-w-tyler

Rubin, L. J. (1994). Ralph W. Tyler: A remembrance. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(10), 784-786.

Stanford News Service, (1994). Ralph Tyler, one of century’s foremost educators, dies at 91.
Informally published manuscript, Department of Education, Stanford University, Palo Alto,
California. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/94/940228Arc4425.html

Vinovskis, M., A. (1998). The nation’s report card: The creation and evolution of the national
assessment governing board (NAGB). Paper prepared for the NAGB, University of Michigan.