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.
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.
