a) I’ve experienced the Tyler rationale through many ways in my own schooling. That approach consisting in focusing on the end result can be flawed because there were times when I understood class material but did bad on final (bad day, stress, being nervous…). Judging from the end result can be deceptive and tricky at times.
There were also students that had a hard time with teacher’s methods and therefore were left behind because the majority was fine. The teacher was more concerned about finishing the curriculum rather than being slowed down by a few students who had problems understanding.
b) There are many limitations to that approach: some teachers for instance might want to take a different route but are bound by the way things have to be done. In one word, Tyler’s model in my opinion can be too fixed and linear, lacking creativity.
Also, when it comes to setting fixed objectives at the beginning, it can be hard to have all of these goals fulfilled because of the complexity and unexpected situations of the profession.
c) Concerning some benefits of that approach, Mr Schiro says “…it is essential to assess curricula, learners, and teachers. Key concepts during evaluation are accountability and standards.”
Tyler’s model shows a certain level of accountability (towards parents, principal, school board, students themselves…).
Also, those clear and fixed objectives can be helpful in case there was a sub teacher.