|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DURING the past several years, English teachers have been discussing—and usually objecting to—behavioral objectives. In 1969, the National Council of Teachers of English passed a resolution branding the use of behavioral objectives as a “possibly educationally dangerous activity” that could do “real damage to English instruction.” The following year, an NCTE resolution posed six far-reaching questions to which, “among others,” teachers should “assert their right to have satisfactory answers, supported by adequate evidence” whenever they are “put in the position to use or develop behavioral objectives.” And in 1971, the NCTE resolution on accountability rejected the view that the goals and objectives of English “can be stated only in quantifiably measurable terms describing the behavior … students will display at the completion of instruction.”
While the NCTE was condemning or questioning to death the behavioral statement of educational goals, objectives were being studied quite extensively for use in the English and language arts classroom. In 1969, for example, Indiana University, Purdue University, and the University of Illinois began the Tri-University Behavioral Objectives for English project in order to create a list of behaviorally-phrased objectives for use by teachers as they formulate even more specific instructional objectives. Currently, the University of California has available sets of objectives for English composition, remedial English, journalism, and speech. And in the journals of our profession we periodically find articles suggesting behavioral objectives for a wide range of courses.
Interest in behavioral objectives also has been expanding outside the domain of English teachers examining the possibilities of an educational tool. Behavioral objectives have achieved real and growing currency within the social sciences, within the literature of higher education and school administration, within programmed and contracted instruction, and within the consciousness of state agencies for teacher certification and the thinking of legislators and administrators of governmental agencies. Indeed, most teachers who heard James R. Squires speak on behavioralism and accountability at the 1972 Conference on College Composition and Communication left Boston knowing that, for good or ill, behavioral objectives are here to stay—and that they must be reckoned with by teachers of English.
What I propose here is a method for reckoning with behavioral objectives—a modest plan to help teachers respond intelligently to outside pressure to develop and use behavioral objectives in English classes. Stated in outline form, the plan is quite simple:
As this outline suggests, I do not despise the use of objectives. In fact, it seems clear to me that instructional objectives can help the teacher as he plans courses, carries out his instruction, evaluates his students, and evaluates his course. That is why I titled this article as I did. The response I propose is a constructive one rather than a reactionary or hysterical flight from objectives or a self-deluding retreat to the comfortable opinion that the way we teach is the only or the best way to teach. Still, however, I recognize a need for self-defense against pressures that would force the complex humanistic goals of literature and writing courses into unduly limited objectives stressing skills to the exclusion of their proper focus on the more significant, if more nebulous, outcomes of education. And so I suggest a specific way to approach the subject of behavioral objectives.
Clearly, if you are going to improve the quality of your teaching by using behavioral objectives, or if you are going to have any chance at all of resisting the demands or suggestions of college deans or other administrators that you use such objectives in your classes (this plan for constructive self-defense is intended to serve either motive or a combination of the two), you must understand some things about objectives. What are “behavioral objectives” or, as they are also called, “instructional objectives”? What are their main strengths and weaknesses? In what kinds of courses are they most likely to prove a help or a hindrance7 Unless you know such things as these, you can hardly expect to be taken very seriously when you tell a behavioral objectives zealot that “Instructional objectives won't work in the kind of classes that I teach!” Think of it, if you will, as getting to know your enemy, but any intelligent response to the idea of behaviorally-stated educational goals must begin with knowledge of the nature of instructional objectives.
Fortunately for all of us who are not particularly conversant with the terminology of behavioral psychology, there is a wealth of accessible material to help us understand behavioral objectives (a sampling is included in the bibliography at the end of this article). Thus my first suggestion is that you familiarize yourself with some of this literature.
Once you have done some research and thinking about the nature and possible uses of instructional objectives, you will be ready to move in a number of directions. You might find that you have converted yourself into a proselytizing behavioralist. Or you might find yourself prepared for a fight to the finish with behavioralism. (If you develop either of these extreme symptoms, you might read Alan Purves' “Of Behaviors, Objectives, and English.”) No doubt everyone will have his own response to objectives, and I do not presume to dictate your reactions. But as a constructive next step in self-defense against outside pressure to write and use specific objectives, I suggest that you use your newly-acquired knowledge to develop a congenial working definition of the term “instructional objective.”
I make this particular suggestion because of two related facts. First, the bulk of the criticism against applying objectives to English has centered on the narrowness of specific behavioral objectives and their consequent inability to do justice to the broad goals of literature and writing classes (see the articles by Guth, McPherson, and Zoellner in the bibliography, for example). And second, by their very nature behavioral objectives have proved more applicable to educational situations involving relatively low-level learning of intellectual content than to those dealing with such higher-order cognitive activities as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation or to those involving attitudes and emotional responses to subject matter.
This last assertion is disputed by some, who point out that just because objectives have focused on such behavior in the past is no reason to think that they must be limited to such behavior (see Ojemann). But as they are generally described—and thus as they are most probably understood by those who may urge you to use objectives—instructional objectives are associated with skills and with discrete and easily quantifiable units of cognitive behavior. For instance, Robert Mager's influential description of instructional objectives is limited, as Mager himself points out, exclusively to content objectives and says nothing about such matters as critical attitudes, student initiative and independence, or appreciation (p. 52). Generalizing about how the concept of objectives has developed since its original formulations, Daniel Tanner observes that “actual instructional and testing practices reveal an emphasis on cognitive outcomes almost to the exclusion of affective outcomes.” In fact, Tanner writes that many current proponents of objectives “have become so obsessed with detailed specifications that the learning outcomes being measured represent atomistic bits and pieces of ‘knowledge’ rather than generalized behaviors” (pp. 67 and 33).
Instructional objectives, then, at least as they are most likely to be interpreted, stress only limited aspects of the broad goals of instruction in English. Applied by analogy to English, Mager's dicta that an objective specify desired terminal behavior , describe the conditions under which it is to occur, and indicate the criteria for acceptable performance (p. 12), can result in lists of specific objectives which, without proper control and integration, could fragment the learning process and destroy the unity of literary work and reader response that informs so much of study in English. The danger is real if highly specified objectives are improperly used. As Daniel Tanner puts it, “detailed specifications often have a restrictive influence on teaching and learning. … Learning loses its artistic and adventurous possibilities when virtually every bit of learned behavior must be specified in advance” (p. 33). And Paul Dressel, a well-known professional in educational research and evaluation, concurs:
Those who demand a precise detailed description of student behavior tend to develop a long list of specific objectives and, in the process, lose sight of some of the ideals, values, and social skills which are important (though somewhat esoteric and intangible) as well as the higher-order cognitive processes, such as analysis, synthesis, and critical or creative thinking. The latter, in the long run, are the most significant outcomes of higher education. Unless these broader outcomes and more pervasive ones are kept in mind, detailed objectives carried to the level of spelling out particular experiences and highly specific knowledge and skill are as destructive to the unity of a program as the traditional emphasis on courses and disciplines. (p. 10)
While danger lurks in highly detailed objectives, the main point of this constructive method of self-defense is that instructional objectives do not need to be so rigorously specific. Robert Mager, who feels that objectives should specify the behavior, conditions, and criteria for acceptance, states that “it will not be necessary to include all three in each objective” (p. 12). And, though he is committed to the specification of objectives, Thorwald Esbensen also provides evidence in favor of a more general idea of instructional objectives. In his essay on “Writing Instructional Objectives,” Esbensen states that an objective should indicate “(1) what it is that a student who has mastered the objective will be able to do , (2) under what conditions he will be able to do it, and (3) to what extent he will be able to do it” (Kapfer, p. 9). But in Working With Individualized Instruction , he states that “An instructional objective should not ordinarily be limited to specific means (particular materials or methods), but should be stated in terms that-permit the use of various procedures” (Palo Alto: Fearon, 1968, p. 7). More emphatically, Stanford Ericksen, director of the University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, writes that “instructional objectives must be sufficiently flexible to enable each student to adapt and shape a course of study to meet his personal educational purposes” (p. 2). Philip Kapfer, of the Bureau of Educational Research of the University of Utah, cautions against overwhelming students with extremely specific objectives; and he writes that the “action term” of an objective (the kind of behavior, the first point in the formulations of Mager and Esbensen) is more important than further specifications (Miriam Kapfer, p. 153). And Ralph Tyler points out that while an objective must be quite clear, clarity should not be confused with great specificity (Kapfer, pp. 14142).
What all of this means is that “instructional objective” is not the same thing as “highly-specified instructional objective.” Joseph Jenkins and Stanley Deno indicate, in fact, that there are four levels of objectives. At the first level are such general goals as helping students become good citizens, while at the fourth level every objective involves such concrete behavior as writing, checking-off, or speaking. Further, the two researchers state that the second level—involving generalized behaviors such as knowing and appreciating—is a legitimate area for objectives, though “some, the most conservative behavioralists in particular, would rather deny” its relevance to instructional objectives (“A Model for Instructional Objectives,” p. 12). This last article suggests not only that objectives do exist at various levels of specificity or generality but also that the demand for highly-specified objectives springs from the special interests and dispositions of a particular group of behavioralists. Daniel Tanner furthers this impression that current demands for high specificity should not be equated with the whole of the behavioral objectives movement. According to Tanner, in the past twenty years objectives have drifted away from Ralph Tyler's early concern for “continuity, sequence, and integration” within curricula, and also away from his fairly generalized examples of objectives. Now, he writes, many advocates of behavioral objectives “insist on such specificity that the ‘behavior’ is not generalizable; consequently, an operant-conditioning rationale is needed to fill the void” (p. 27).
It appears, then, on the basis of even a limited review of a large and growing literature, that highly-specified objectives are only one type of objective and that instructional objectives may be written at a much lower level of specificity than you might deduce from reading Mager, Esbensen, or a number of other popularizers of objectives. So if you are directed to develop highly-specific objectives and you fear or distrust their use in English classes, a very reasonable response would be to demonstrate that general instructional objectives still are instructional objectives. Turn to the writings of recognized figures in the objectives movement to document your case for generalized objectives in English. Explain your thinking in detailed memos or position papers supported by footnotes and bibliographies that indicate that your resistance to highly-specified objectives is reasoned, judicious, and substantive.
Once you have a congenially general working definition of what you or your staff mean by “instructional objective,” you are ready to write objectives consistent with your definition. Just what these objectives will look like will depend on your definition, the subject matter of the course for which you are developing the objectives, and any number of variables present in your students and the educational context in which you are working. But one teaching staff of which I have been a member created several content objectives for a freshman writing course by applying this working definition: “An instructional objective stipulates a kind of thinking behavior in sufficient detail to direct the student's attention to the theme of the course, self awareness. An objective also indicates generally the manner in which the student will express his thinking. Matters of the appropriateness or acceptability of the expressions are left unspecified to foster creativity and mutual intimacy and dependency in the learner-teacher relationship.”
On the basis of this definition, the following objectives were specified for this Self Awareness Through Writing course:
Notice how this definition and these objectives modify the three points in the descriptions of Mager and Esbensen. They name general kinds of intellectual behavior: thinking about the self generally; thinking about opinions of personal significance; analyzing background influences; comparing and contrasting views; analyzing writing style; exercising the imaginative faculties. They also describe the limiting conditions very generally: the student's thinking is to be expressed in writing, usually in expository papers, but once in a creative form. Significantly, though, the definition and objectives of the Self Awareness Through Writing course do not specify the criteria for acceptable performance but allow each teacher to adapt the common course objectives to his particular methods and materials.
Many behavioralists would object that a behavioral objective must deal with externally observable behavior—tightening nuts on bolts, filling out multiple-choice tests, writing sentences. It is precisely at this point that the special interests of behavioral psychology intrude into instructional objectives, asking all of us to adopt its assumption that only the readily observable expression of the ineffable but ultimately more significant inner activity may be used in objectives. But Ralph Tyler himself used fairly generalized objectives, such as “to develop ability to apply principles taught in biological science to concrete biological problems in [one's] everyday life” (see Tanner, p. 27). And James Popham, a frequent advocate of the behavioral expression of course objectives, now not only concedes that some non-behavioral objectives are acceptable but also that the allowable proportion of non-behavioral objectives to behavioral objectives may be fairly large in the humanities (“Must All Objectives Be Behavioral?”). Precedents exist, then, to allow you to insist that your objectives state the behaviors in which you actually are interested—analytic behaviors, synthesizing behaviors, inferring behaviors, emotional-response behaviors, and the like. Indeed, Robert Ebel notes that “behavioral consequences are not the real objectives of instruction. These objectives are, rather, the knowledge and understanding, the attitudes and values which induced the behavior or made it possible” (p. 171).
Perhaps, though, the administrator who is urging your use of objectives simply will not stand for any objectives which do not focus on externally-observable behavior. If this is the case, you can still use objectives as generalized as the ones for Self Awareness Through Writing. For these six statements do stipulate observable physical behavior—writing. And they further define the conditions surrounding this behavior by indicating the general subject matter on which the writing will be focused. These objectives, in fact, conform to a second definition of generalized instructional objectives: “An instructional objective states the kind of behavior expected of a student in the most general terms possible. It then limits the behavior by indicating qualities of subject matter, relevance to society, or importance to the student. It does not, however, prescribe percentages of accuracy, time limits, or other arbitrary restraints.” So, if you deduce that an argument in favor of internal behavioral objectives would fall on deaf ears, you can define “instructional objective” so as to require external behavior while still modifying Mager's formulation to allow for greater generality.
And, if the pressure toward specific objectives that involve externalized behavior is especially severe, you can write even more detailed objectives without yoking your teaching to unmanageable lists of fragmented and easily-quantifiable details. Here, for example, are five of the thirteen objectives used in a Shakespeare course:
These objectives specify external behavior—the student's verbal responses in class and his performance on written assignments. They also describe conditions under which the behavior will occur when they stipulate that the student will deal with concepts of comedy, tragedy, Shakespearean genres, dramatic structure, and poetic language. And these five objectives provide criteria for acceptable performance; for instance, they state that the student must indicate differences between comedy and tragedy, suggest the prose meaning of poetic passages, and illustrate points with appropriate excerpts. But, even though these objectives speak to behavior, conditions, and criteria, they still emphasize the inner behavior of students more than they do any specific external actions which reflect this behavior.
Simply writing generalized instructional objectives is not the end of this strategy for constructive self-defense. In addition, you should use your definition and your objectives in your teaching. Struggling with what you do as a teacher hard enough to write the objectives cannot but contribute to the mindfulness of your teaching. And trying to apply the objectives as you design your curriculum, order your texts, schedule your media, construct your tests, and evaluate the results of your course can bring many other benefits.
In your further self-defense, you should also publicize your objectives, how you arrived at them, and how you are using them in your teaching. Your reasonable, intelligent, and documented response to the concept of objectives may very well convince your college's dean or other administrator who is advocating your development of behavioral objectives that valid and useful objectives do not have to be extremely specific statements of physical behavior. He may have only an imperfect understanding of objectives, and his public commitment to the behavioral statement of educational outcomes may not be identical to his personal feelings about curriculum and teaching. So your clearly-written position papers, bringing together materials from the literature of objectives, could help him see instructional objectives in a new light. Even if they do not, your serious and genuine response to the idea of objectives could create a feeling of satisfaction in the administrator and lead him to divert his attentions from you to the teachers and departments that still have given no thought at all to behavioral objectives. And, even if this does not happen and the pressure to develop very specific objectives continues, you will be well prepared for battle and, quite probably, you will have made your opponent cautious or defensive by the vigor of your preparation.
Findlay College
Bolvin, John O. “Implications of the Individualization of Instruction for Curriculum and Instructional Design.” Audiovisual Instruction, 13 (March 1968), 23842. Rpt. in Kapfer, pp. 18999.
Dieter, Lynn. “Behavioral Objectives in the Classroom: A Model.” English Journal, 59 (Dec. 1970), 125962.
Dressel, Paul L. “The Problems of Evaluation.” The New Colleges.' Toward an Appraisal. Ed. Paul Dressel. Iowa City: American College Testing Program and the American Association for Higher Education, 1971, pp. 124.
Ebel, Robert L. “Behavioral Objectives: A Close Look.” Phi Delta Kappan, 52 (Nov. 1970), 17173.
Ericksen, Stanford C. “Learning Theory and the Teacher III: Defining Instructional Objectives.” Memo to the Faculty. University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. December, 1970. This six-page pamphlet treats objectives within the context of cognitive and affective education; not a mechanical definition of objectives, but a discussion of where objectives fit into the total educational process.
Esbensen, Thorwald. “Writing Instructional Objectives.” Phi Delta Kappan 48 (Jan. 1967), 246247. Rpt. in Kapfer, pp. 913. A direct and well-illustrated definition compatible with Mager's longer discussion. Perhaps the best place to begin a study of objectives.
Guth, Hans P. “The Monkey on the Bicycle: Behavioral Objectives and the Teaching of English.” English Journal, 59 (Sept. 1970), 78592.
Hawthorne, Richard D. “Instructional Objectives.” The Encyclopedia of Education. New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1971. V, 106107. A short and authoritative discussion of the history, development, and use of objectives. Bibliography.
Hersh, Richard, and Stuart Cohen. “A Case Against a Case Against Behavioral Objectives.” Elementary School Journal, 71 (May 1971),43037.
Hook, J.N. “The Tri-University BOE Project: A Progress Report.” On Writing Behavioral Objectives for English. Eds. Maxwell and Tovatt, pp. 7586.
Hoetker, James. “Limitations and Advantages of Behavioral Objectives in the Arts and Humanities.” On Writing Behavioral Objectives for English. Eds. Maxwell and Tovatt, pp. 4959.
Jenkins, Joseph R., and Stanley L. Deno. “A Model for Instructional Objectives.” Educational Technology, 10 (Dec. 1970), 1116.
Jenkins, Joseph R., and Stanley L. Deno. “Influence of Knowledge and Type of Objectives on Subject Matter Learning.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 62 (Feb. 1971), 6770.
Kapfer, Miriam B., ed. Behavioral Objectives in Curriculum Development. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1971. Forty-four reprinted articles and eight bibliographies organized around eight topics, including overview, improving instruction by clarifying objectives, curriculum evaluation, and opposing viewpoints.
Kapfer, Philip G. “Behavioral Objectives and the Curriculum Processor.” Educational Technology, 10 (May 1970), 1417. Rpt. Miriam Kapfer, pp. 14857.
Kimbel, Roland B. “Educational Philosophy and Behavioral Objectives.” Clearing House, 45 (April 1971), 496500.
Kirkton, Carole M. “A Reference Shelf for Curriculum Planning III: Behavioral Objectives.” English Journal, 60 (Jan. 1971), 14250. A review of the objectives situation in English using paraphrases and quotations to represent various positions. Annotated listing of ERIC documents on objectives.
Lapp, Diane. “Behavioral Objectives Writing Skills Test.” Journal of Education, 154 (Feb. 1972), 1324.
Lazarus, Arnold. “Performance Objectives in Reading and Responding to Literature.” English Journal, 61 (Jan. 1972), 5258.
Lee, Richard R. “Linguistics, Communication, and Behavioral Objectives: A Remedial Curriculum.” Speech Teacher, 20 (Jan. 1971), 19.
Mager, Robert F. Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto: Fearon, 1962. An easily-read book presenting and illustrating the subject of objectives in a format which further illustrates the idea of objectives. The book deals only with simple content objectives. Summaries on pp. 24, 43, and 53.
Maxwell, John, and Anthony Tovatt, eds. On Writing Behavioral Objectives for English. Champaign: NCTE, 1970. Eleven diverse papers from a 1969 meeting of the NCTE Commission on the English Curriculum. Bibliography.
McPherson, Elizabeth. “The Chairman and His Faculty.” Bulletin of the Association of Departments of English, Sept. 1970, pp. 3132.
Meade, Richard A. “Whatever Happened to Insights?” English Journal, 60 (Dec. 1971), 123437.
Ojemann, Ralph H. “Should Educational Objectives Be Stated in Behavioral Terms?—Parts I, II, and III.” Elementary School Journal, 68 (Feb. 1968), 22331; 69 (Feb. 1969), 22935; 70 (Feb. 1970), 27178.
Popham, W. James. “Must All Objectives Be Behavioral? Educational Leadership, 29 (April 1972), 60508.
Popham, W. James. “Probing the Validity of Arguments Against Behavioral Goals.” Unpublished paper, 1968. Rpt. in Kapfer, pp. 39098.
Purves, Alan C. “‘Measure what men are doing. Plan for what man might become.’” On Writing Behavioral Objectives for English. Eds. Maxwell and Tovatt, pp. 8796.
Purves, Alan C. “Of Behaviors, Objectives, and English.” English Journal, 59 (Sept. 1970), 79397.
Raths, James D. “Teaching Without Specific Objectives.” Educational Leadership, 28 (April 1971), 71420.
Seybold, Donald A. “A Response to ’Misbehaviorist English.’” On Writing Behavioral Objectives for English. Eds. Maxwell and Tovatt, pp. 11723.
Tanner, Daniel. Using Behavioral Objectives in the Classroom . New York: Macmillan, 1972. A brief, solid discussion of the history, development, and use of objectives in both the cognitive and affective areas and of the ramifications of objectives for curriculum and testing. Study questions. Bibliography.
Tyler, Ralph W. “Some Persistent Questions on the Defining of Objectives.” Defining Educational Objectives. Ed. C.M. Lindvall. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. Rpt. in Kapfer, pp. 13947. A discussion of the importance and writing of objectives by one of the most significant figures in the development of the objectives movement.
Zoellner, Robert. “Behavioral Objectives for English.” College English, 33 (Jan. 1972), 41832.
Zoellner, Robert. “Lucy's Dance Lessons and Account-ability in English.” College Composition and Communication, 22 (Oct. 1971) 22936.
© 1973 by the Association of Departments of English. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
