Chapter 2: Educational objectives: Help or hindrance?

Educational objectives: Help or hindrance
By Elliot Eisner

In the second chapter (1967) of his book, Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner (2005), the author questions the very foundation of educational curriculum: objectives. He argues that educational objectives may hinder as well as help learning.
He begins with a brief history of educational objectives, stating that they were developed for three reasons: to provide goals for curriculum, to guide course content, and to evaluate the outcomes. He discusses the origins of curriculum objectives, explaining that they emerged from the work of Franklin Bobbitt, “the father of curriculum theory (p. 18),” who in turn based his work on the theory of mind of the time which believed that “…transfer of learning occurred if and only if elements in one situation were identical to another (p.17).” As such reams of specific curriculum objectives were developed so that learning could take place in every possible realm. Eisner cites examples of curriculum objectives which listed over 1500 specific objectives, and then notes that “…this curriculum movement collapsed under its own weight by the 1930s (p.18).” He discusses the pendulum swing away from specific objectives in the 1940s and 50s and notes that by the 1960s they were again back in fashion in a slightly different form, being then stated in behavioural terms.
Eisner next makes the thrust of his case against educational objectives in four convincing arguments.
1. “…[T]he dynamic and complex process of instruction yields outcomes far too numerous to be specified in behavioral and content terms in advance (p.19).” He expands on this idea noting that the instructional process is dynamic and influenced by such a multitude of outside factors such as student interest, teachable moments, personal interactions, etc. that setting measurable specific objectives becomes impossible.
2. Setting educational objectives “…[fails] to recognize the constraints various subject matters place upon objectives (p. 19).” Here he argues that some subjects such as math lend themselves easily to setting specific objectives, but other subjects such as art or creative writing are too subjective. He maintains that the end result in some subjects should be a “…surprise to both teacher and pupil (p. 20)”; that end objectives cannot be entirely determined at the outset of the instructional process.
3. His third argument is closely tied to the second. He claims that objectives cannot be accurately “…used as criteria by which to measure the outcomes of curriculum and instruction (p.20).” He says that such evaluation involves judgment and that not all valuable outcomes are even measureable. He argues that “…what is most educationally valuable is the development of that mode of curiosity, inventiveness, and insight that is capable of being described only in metaphoric or poetic terms (p. 21).” These outcomes are impossible to measure using stated educational objectives.
4. Eisner’s final stand against educational objectives is rooted in his belief that one cannot set educational objectives as a roadmap to successful completion of instruction. He argues that so much of learning takes place as the curriculum is actually constructed; the objectives cannot be fully known until the ‘act of instruction’ has been completed (p. 21). He says that “…curriculum theory as it pertains to educational objectives…has not distinguished between the logical requirement of relating means to ends in the curriculum as a product and the psychological conditions useful for constructing curriculums (p. 22).”
Eisner ends the chapter by comparing a child to a work of art, and the teacher to the art critic. He asserts that “...one task of the teacher would be to reveal the qualities of the child to himself and to others… [and to be] responsible for the improvement of the work of art (p.22).”

Reflections:
I believe much of what Eisner has to say is valuable. I especially like his conclusion, comparing a child to a work of art. Yes, indeed, it is our role as teachers to recognize the individual talents and strengths of our students, and then to help them improve in the areas in which they need growth. However, I also believe that there are certain basic concepts, in every society, which need to be included as part of a basic curriculum. Students need to learn to communicate in both oral and written form, and they need to be able to express themselves clearly. In my opinion, basic math skills are essential as well.
I believe in his central tenet that curriculum objectives need to be evaluated carefully, but I do not, in the end, believe that having curriculum objectives is harmful. Most teachers are too insightful and practical to be handcuffed to specific objectives. Instead, they carefully consider what they believe is worthy and workable in their classrooms, and then extract those achievable objectives from the stated list of curriculum objectives.

thoughts about Nick's post on evaluation

The danger of evaluation of curriculum is that the evaluators become further and further removed from the actual classroom climate and the students who are impacted by the curriculum. They need to be constantly in touch with real teachers and real classroom situations in order to design practical, useful assessment tools. I believe there is a place for both formal and informal, formative and summative evaluation. As educators, we must weigh our assessment tools carefully to ensure that we are testing for all of the right reasons. We must begin with the end in mind to decide where we want our students to go, how to get there, and then, how did far did they get towards achieving those goals. While we are doing this, we have to constantly evaluate (formatively assess) our curriculum materials and teaching strategies to ensure that we are delivering the best program we can.

Readings for Sept. 29th Posner

Analyzing the Curriculum
by George Posner
pp. 227-236
The Collaborative Approach to Curriculum Implementation
This section of Chapter Nine details the differences between other methods of curriculum implementation and the collaborative approach. Table 9.2 (p. 229) summarizes the major differences between the collaborative and traditional scientific RD&D method:

(I had copied this into a tidy table, but couldn't transfer it from Windows in that format -sorry)

What knowledge and skills are necessary for implementing change?
RD&D: Explicit taught skills
Collaborative: Tacit or craft knowledge; teacher with teacher learning
What is the focus of development efforts?
RD&D: Materials production
Collaborative: Professional growth of teachers
What directs curriculum change?
RD&D: Objectives
Collaborative: Teacher beliefs
What evaluation methods are used?
RD&D: Psychometric; standardized testing
Collaborative: Ethnographic; kid-watching
What is the goal for curriculum implementation?
RD&D: Fidelity of implementation
Collaborative: Multiple interpretations

The author seems to be a proponent of the collaborative method of curriculum implementation, pointing out the obvious flaws in the RD&D method. He cites the “…isolation of the RD&D efforts from teachers” (p. 227) whereby researchers developed curriculum in isolation from teachers who were then expected to implement curriculum goals which they didn’t necessarily share (p. 228). Teachers were then accused of ‘sabotage’ when they tried to adapt the curriculum to fit their specific needs and situations. The collaborative model, on the other hand, allows teachers to be active participants in the development and implementation of the curriculum and even invites other stake-holders, such as the students and community members to be part of the design and review of new curriculum. This model was described in detail as the author examined the implementation of a whole language program in one school district. The success of this program served to underscore the benefits of the collaborative approach.
In summary, the chapter suggests that although the RD&D approach “provides for systematic and deliberate planning, carrying, out and monitoring… the collaborative approach provides for teacher ownership and growth (p. 235).”
Comment:
I totally agree that the collaborative method of curriculum implementation is superior to the RE&D method. When teachers are encouraged to examine their practices and beliefs, and then to make changes in their curriculum delivery based on that reflection, the students can only benefit. When teachers thoughtfully experiment and risk teaching what they truly believe in, rather than what manuals prescribe, the classroom becomes an exciting laboratory of critical thinking and learning.

response to Jacquie's post Sept. 22nd

I read Jacquie's post with interest. We come from different teaching perspectives, she with adult learners, and me with young children, and yet we both agree that each learner develops a distinct learning style. In fact, educators in recent years have come to believe that learning styles are so important that elementary teachers are now mandated to develop a learning profile on each student at the start of the year. Surveys to determine multiple intelligences, right/left/middle brain dominance and tactile/auditory/visual learning are now common in schools. Instead of the behaviourist days of the past, when our parents were admonished to leave the work of teaching to the 'professionals', student and parents are now encouraged to take an active role in their own learning. Metacognition is taught even in the early years.
I believe in the theory of constructivism, but allow my students to build their knowledge base through a variety of learning strategies from formal written assignments to dramatic presentations to developing a board or computer game to teach a concept to the class. Choice is often, (but not always) offered. :)

Sept. 22nd reading

Analyzing the Curriculum
by George Posner
pp. 127-143

Chapter Six discusses the ways in which curriculum is organized. It opens with a discussion of the basic terms and concepts which the author deems necessary to know in order to objectively analyze any curriculum. The most important caution comes on page 136 when Posner warns, “curriculum organization is a cultural construction, and is, therefore, subject to change…skepticism regarding current practice in curriculum organization is preferable to blind acceptance.”
Some basic terms which Posner identifies are:

macro organization: relations between education levels such as elementary/secondary OR between programs such as general and vocational; the organization of courses to form programs

micro organization: relations between concepts, facts, or skills within lessons; the organization of particular courses or units

vertical dimensions: what follows or precedes a particular study; the sequencing of content; e.g. prerequisites for courses

horizontal dimensions: integration and/or correlation of content taught concurrently; e.g. combining English and history to become American Studies

CONTENT STRUCTURES:
o discrete: all content is unrelated or independent of other content; e.g. Sesame Street T.V.
o linear: all content requires mastery of the previous concept or skill e.g. Bloom’s taxonomy, Saxon math
o pyramidal or hierarchical: multiple unrelated skills are necessary for learning subsequent concepts or skills
o spiral: same concepts are taught in different ways at different ages and stages of educational development

NOTE: pyramidal and spiral fall partway between the opposing extremes of discrete and linear content structure

Macro-level curriculum organization: This section reviews the ways in which our school systems are currently structured ie with English and Math being the basics in Elementary school, and the addition of other major subjects, and some electives in high school. Posner discusses the reasons for the way in which curriculum was and is organized, noting that until the 19th century, the primary purpose of schools was for religious purposes. Later, the emergence of math was a response to “the growing commercial class.” (p. 135) The idea of basic skills is a fairly recent concept and structure for organizing the teaching of curriculum. Posner concludes this section by instructing curriculum analysts to keep Schwab’s four commonplaces in mind when looking at curriculum organization: the subject matter, the learning and learning process, the teacher and teaching process, and the milieu in which education takes place (p. 138). He then begins to examine each of these areas, teaching us to first look at how subject matter is organized (e.g. world related principles vs. concept related principles, then how learners are organized (e.g. using Gardner’s multiple intelligences), and so on.

response to vincent's blog

It seems to me that all of these academics are afraid to come to a decision; no one wants to give a definitive definition of curriculum. When we studied culture, no one wanted to give a definitive definition for culture. I think curriculum should be a series of outcome expectations, not the method of delivery. I believe the best curriculums use the Understanding by Design model offered by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (1998). They suggest that curriculum writers begin with the end in mind. Decide what we believe our students need to learn, and then design the best program to help the teacher and students achieve those goals. Each teacher will use different strategies and methods to achieve the end result.

As far as social skills training, that is one of the buzzwords in education these days. All schools in the OCDSB are now required to have a character education program in place. A recent CBC back to school survey revealed that social skills training is one of the highest priorities for parents with regards to their children's education.

EDU 6460 Posner Reading

Analyzing the Curriculum
by George Posner
pp. 33-40

Chapter Two discusses the context in which curriculum is created. The author reminds the reader that curriculum is created as a response to a particular need, problem or situation, and prompts us to bear those factors in mind when analyzing a specific curriculum. He poses several questions to consider when reviewing curriculum:
· Where does a curriculum come from?
· Who develops the curriculum?
· How are curricula affected by social, political, economic, or cultural situations? (Posner, p. 33)
He emphasizes that if one understands the historical context, players involved in writing the curriculum, and their foremost concerns when writing the curriculum, one will be better able to understand and objectively analyze the curriculum.
Posner directs the reader to firstly consider what he calls the ‘cast of characters.’ He instructs us to closely examine the writers of the curriculum documents, while acknowledging that it may require a little digging on the part of the researcher to determine the exact identity of the curriculum writers. He quotes Schwab (1971), who suggests that five viewpoints should be represented in the writing of any curriculum:
1. the learners
2. the teachers
3. the subject matter
4. the milieu
5. the coordinator
He describes each of these roles, suggesting that having a person(s) to represent each of these interests would constitute the ideal writing team. He suggests that researchers look for ‘blind spots’ in the writing team (p. 35).
Posner then encourages the reader to delve into the reasons behind the development of the curriculum. He says it is necessary to find the driving force behind the call for new curriculum documents because it is only by understanding this background that the researcher can properly assess the curriculum. He suggests that the researcher look for the underlying problem and its accompanying assumptions that were the impetus for curriculum change. Some examples are presented: the drug education program in US schools, and A Nation at Risk, the 1983 report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education, and M: ACOS, another US national education initiative. Posner describes the historical context, the political and social climate of the time period and demonstrates how certain curriculum items were addressed and others ignored because of the underlying assumptions during that particular time period.
Posner’s overall message in Chapter Two is to view curriculum as a product of a particular context.