The Structure, Specificity, and Problems of Objectives

Given the importance of objectives in education, in this chapter we address the structure, specificity, and criticisms of objectives. We recognize that objectives exist in many forms, ranging from highly specific to global and from explicit to implicit. We also recognize that there is debate over the merits and liabilities of objectives in their varied forms. We concentrate mainly on those objectives that we believe are most useful for identifying the intended cognitive outcomes of schooling, for guiding the selection of effective instructional activities, and for selecting or designing appropriate assessments. We understand that other types and forms of objectives may be useful in different ways. A. The Structure of Objectives ...... 1. Content versus Knowledge ...... 2. Behavior versus Cognitive Processes ..... Second, aided by the popularity of management-by-objectives, task analysis, and programmed instruction in the 1950s and 1960s, behavior became an adjective modifying objective. The level of specificity and detail of these new behavioral objectives went well beyond Tyler original concept of objectives to include the conditions under which students were to demonstrate their learning and the standards of performance that would indicate that successful learning had taken place. Consider this typical behavioral objective of the 1950s and 1960s: Given a map or chart, the student will correctly define six of the eight representational devices and symbols on it. The bold print indicates the conditions; the italicized material indicates the standard of performance. It is understandable that critics who equated Tylers more generally stated objectives with behavioral objectives saw them as narrow and inadequate. In part to eliminate confusion, we have replaced behavior with the term cognitive process. This change reflects the fact that cognitive psychology and cognitive science have become the dominant perspectives in psychology and education. We can make better sense of the verbs in objectives by using the knowledge gained from cognitive research. To illustrate this point, consider the following set of verbs: list, write, state, classify, explain, and attribute. The first three verbs list, write, and state are staples of traditional behavioral objectives (e.g., The students will be able to list three reasons for the rise of communism in Eastern Europe). However, these verbs are vague in terms of their underlying cognitive processes. How, for example, did the students arrive at their lists? Did they remember a list provided by the teacher or encountered in a textbook? Or, did they analyze material contained in several books to develop their lists? In this case, a single verb list can be associated with two very different Taxonomy categories Remember and Analyze. In contrast, the second set of three verbs classify, explain, and attribute have specify meanings within our framework. Classify means to determine whether something belongs to a particular category. Explain means to construct a cause- and effect- model of a system. Attribute means to determine the point of view, bias, values, or intent underlying presented material. This increased specificity helps us focus on what we want students to learn (e.g., classify) rather than on how we expect them to demonstrate their learning (e.g., list). Our use of term cognitive

process in place of behavior thus not only eliminates the confusion with behaviorism but also reflects our effort to incorporate cognitive psychological research findings into our revision of the framework. Accordingly the two main dimensions of the Taxonomy Table are the four types of knowledge and the six major cognitive process categories. B. Specificity of Objectives The general domain of objectives is best represented as a continuum ranging from quite general to very specific. Along this continuum, Krathwohl and Payne (1971) identified three levels of specificity called global, educational, and instructional guidance objectives, with the latter now more commonly referred to as instructional objectives. As we discuss these three levels, you should bear in mind that they represent three positions on a continuum of specificity, so that classifying any objective involves a judgment about the level in which it best fits. 1. Global Objectives Global objectives are complex, multifaceted learning outcomes that require substantial time and instruction to accomplish. They are broadly stated and encompass large number of more specific objectives.here are three examples of global objectives: All students will start school ready to learn. All students will leave Grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter. All students will learn to use their mind well, so they will be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nations economy. These global objectives are taken from Goals 2000, a set of goals for U.S. education to be achieved by the year 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). The function of global objectives, or goals, is to provide a vision of the future and a rallying cry for policy makers, curriculum developers, teachers, and the public at large. The goals indicate in a broad-brush way what is deemed relevant in a good education. Thus, a global objective is something presently out of reach; it is something to strive for, to move toward, or to become. It is an aim or purpose so stated that it excites the imagination and gives people something they want to work for (Kappel, 1960, p.38). 2. Educational Objectives For teachers to use global objectives in their planning and teaching, the objectives must be broken down into a more focused, delimited form. The very generality of global objectives that is necessary to excite the imagination makes them difficult to use to plan classroom activities, define suitable assessment procedures, and evaluate student performances in a meaningful way. More specific objectives are necessary for those tasks. One of the main aims of the original Handbook was to focus attention on objectives somewhat more specific than global objectives. These were called educational objectives. The following objectives, taken from the Handbook, illustrate the nature and increased specificity of educational objective: The ability to read musical scores (p.92) The ability to interpret various types of social data (p.94) Skill in distinguishing facts from hypotheses (p.146) Consistent with Tylers description of educational objectives, each of these objectives describes a student behavior (e.g., to read, to interpret, to distinguish) and some content topic (e.g., musical scores, various types of social data, facts and hypotheses) on which the behavior will be performed.

Educational objectives occupy the middle range on the objective continuum. As such, they are more specific than global objectives but more general than the objectives needed to guide the day-to-day classroom instruction that teachers provide. 3. Instructional Objectives Subsequent to publication of the Handbook, educational tends created a need for even more specific objectives (Airasian, 1994; Sosniak, 1994). The purpose of these instructional objectives was to focus teaching and testing on narrow, day-to-day slices of learning in fairly specific content areas. Examples of instructional objectives follow: The student is able to differentiate among four common punctuation marks. The student learns to add two one-digit numbers. The student is able to cite three causes of the Civil War. The student is able to classify objectives as global, educational, or instructional. Instructional objectives have substantially greater specificity than educational objectives. 4. Summary of Levels of Objectives Table 2.1 compares the scope, time dimension, function, and use of the three levels of objectives. In term of scope, global objectives are broad, whereas instructional objectives are narrow; that is, global objectives do not deal with specifics, instructional objectives deal only with specifics. Global objectives may require one or even many years to learn, whereas instructional objectives can be mastered in a few days. Global objectives provide vision that quite often becomes the basis for support for educational programs. At the other end of the spectrum, instructional objectives are useful for planning daily lessons. Level of Objectives Global Educational Instructional Scope Broad Moderate Narrow Time needed to learn One or more years Weeks or months (often many) Provide vision Design curriculum Hours or days

Purpose or function

Prepare plans

lesson

Example of use

Plan a multiyear Plan units curriculum (e.g., instruction elementary reading)

of Plan activities, experiences, exercises

daily and

In the middle of the continuum lie educational objectives. They are moderate in scope and provide the basis for planning units containing objectives that require weeks or months to learn. Our framework is designed to facilitate working with educational objectives. C. What Objectives are Not To this point we have discussed what objectives are. We now discuss what objectives are not. Some educators have a tendency to confuse means and ends. Objectives describe ends intended results, intended outcomes, intended changes. Instructional activities, such as reading the textbook, listening to the teacher, conducting an experiment, and going on a field trip, are all means by which objectives are achieved. Stated simply, instructional activities, if chosen wisely and used properly, lead to the achievement of

stated objectives. To emphasize the difference between means and ends between instructional activities and objectives the phrases be able to and learn to are either included or implied in our statements of objectives. Thus, for example, Students will learn to apply the criteria for writing coherent paragraphs is a statement of an objective. The act of writing paragraphs is an activity that may or may not lead to the objective. Similarly, Students will learn the algorithm for solving simultaneous equations is an activity. Once again, students may or may not learn to solve simultaneous equations by working on them. When objectives are not stated explicitly, they are often implicit in the instructional activity. For example, an activity might be for students to read The Sun Also Rises. To determine the objective associated with this activity, we can ask the teacher, What do you want your students to learn by reading The Sun Also Rises? the answer to this question is the objective (e.g., I want my students to understand Hemingways skill as a writer). If multiple answers are given, there are likely to be multiple objectives. Just as instructional activities are not objectives, neither are tests or other forms of assessment. For example, Students should be able to pass the statewide high school proficiency test is not an educational objective. To determine the educational objective, we must seek out the knowledge and cognitive process students must learn or possess to pass the test. In summary, it is important not to confuse objectives with instructional activities or assessments. Although each of these can be used to help identify and clarify intended student learning outcome, it is only after an activity or assessment is articulated in terms of intended student learning that the objective becomes evident.