Chapter 3: Instructional and Expressive Educational Objectives
Their formulation and use in curriculum
Eisner begins chapter three of Reimagining Schools (year) by discussing some of the literature on how and why educational objectives are formulated. Much has been written on the methods and approaches educators and curriculum developers follow in defining and developing educational objectives. Eisner draws from the works of Bloom et. Al (1956), Gagné (1976), Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964), Mager (1962), and Tyler (1950) who have identified a set of criteria necessary for articulating effective statements of objectives:
1.) Educational objectives should describe student behaviour, not teacher behaviour
2.) Behavioural objectives must also be linked to content area, for instance, critical thinking in math
3.) Behavioural objectives need to be clear and specific enough that a teacher will be able to identify when they are being displayed without having to rely on making inferences
According to these writers, once educational objectives are defined in the above terms, educators may then see a clear direction for planning curriculum, choosing content and relevant learning activities. Furthermore, a set of clear objectives provide a starting point for developing evaluation methods that, naturally, must reflect the original educational objectives. In fact, Tyler even states that educational objectives “are the most critical criteria for guiding all the other activities of the curriculum-maker” (1950, p.40). Moreover, seventeen years later, Gagné wrote: “It is the defining of objectives that brings an essential clarity into the area of curriculum design and enables both educational planners and researchers to bring their practical knowledge to bear on the matter” (1967, pp. 21-22).
Despite all the literature on the paramount necessity for the defining and development of educational objectives, Eisner states that “we are, I believe, hard pressed to identify the power they are believed to have by their advocates” (p. 25). Eisner begins to problematize this phenomenon by asking a series of questions:
Why do teachers not use tools that are meant to make their work easier?
Why do those who understand how objectives are to be defined disregard them?
In the formulation of objectives, is there a disconnect between theory and practice?
Are the assumptions that objectives are based upon perhaps oversimplified?
Is it possible that those who theorize and write about educational objectives do not share the same world-view as those implementing and teaching the curriculum?
Eisner goes on to describe the formulation of educational objectives as part of a process that is never neutral, and he explains that the metaphors used to describe objectives are often “alien to the educational values held by many of those who teach” (p. 25). Eisner believes most metaphors on the function of education can fit into one of three dominant views that have developed over the past fifty years: the industrial metaphor, the behaviouristic metaphor and the biological metaphor.
Industrial
“The school was seen as a plant. The super-intendent directed the operation of the plant. The teachers were engaged in a job of engineering, and the pupils were the raw material to be processed in the plant according to the demands of the consumers” (p. 26).
Behavioristic
“The behaviouristic method had its birth with efforts to construct a science of education and psychology” (p. 26).
“If educational objectives are to be meaningful, they must be anchored in sense data and the type of data with which education is concerned is that of human behaviour” (p. 27).
Biological
“Those who viewed (and view) education through the biological metaphor were (and are) much more concerned with the attainment of lofty goals, with helping children realize their unique potential, with the development of a sense of self-respect and intellectual and emotional autonomy which can be used throughout their lives.”
Eisner believes these metaphors linger today and continue to influence ideas on education, and that in part, “differences in the metaphoric conception of education” explain competing opinions and ensuing debates on the formulation of educational objectives. Ultimately, Eisner asserts that differences of opinion over the purpose of education and its consequent objectives are really a matter of value difference.
Week V Reading - October 6, 2008
Language and the Inquiry-Oriented Curriculum, 1995
Gordon Wells, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, writes about the potential for teachers and educators to facilitate learning experiences in which student potential and creativity are fostered in tandem with the acquisition of culturally valued knowledge. Wells suggests that an inquiry-oriented curriculum where students are guided in using and mastering cultural resources and tools is a viable approach to achieving this goal. Wells describes this type of learning environment as one in which meaning is co-constructed by and between learners and teachers. He draws heavily on the works of Vygotsky and Leontiev and speaks of the essential role linguistic discourse plays in learning both inside and out of the classroom.
For a summary of the first half of this article, see Lauren’s blog: http://mastersalacarte.blogspot.com/
The following is a brief summary of the second half of Wells’ article, pages 249-269
Cultural Resources
“…human intellectual abilities are not biologically inherited but learned through participation in social activity” (p.249).
Building on Budilova’s ideas (1972), Wells explains how humans invent tools and methods of using tools that are passed down from generation to generation. He speaks of two types of tools, practical tools, which he calls artifacts; these include such things as simple objects like pencils to more sophisticated tools like a wheelbarrow. The second type of tool is symbolic; two of Wells’ examples of symbolic tools are number systems and diagrammatic representations. Tools are created and used to solve practical and intellectual problems. By participating in an activity where a tool is being used, the learner comes to understand the function and use of the tool. During this process the learner “internalizes” what Wells calls the “associated cultural knowledge” (p.250). As learners encounter new tools, they draw on existing cultural knowledge to determine function and use while at the same time considering the context in which the tool is used. Success in mastering a tool depends on the capacity of the learner to make meaning from both cultural knowledge and new information. Wells explains that “tool-mediated problem solving” can be seen as a creative process where both “cultural continuity and the realization of individual potential resides” (p.250).
Wells extends this theory to the goals of education explaining that unlike the polarity between most educational frameworks (traditional vs. progressive, for instance) the concepts of tool-mediated problem solving can be applied at a macro level to the overall purpose of schooling, that being the perpetuation of cultural continuity as well as the development of individual potential. Wells views this conceptualization of education with the student as apprentice and the teacher as a “more expert co-participant” engaging in joint activities where knowledge is shared and new meaning co-constructed. This model allows for students to appropriate the cultural knowledge perceived most useful and necessary for becoming successful members in a given culture.
The Role of Discourse & the Teacher
Wells claims that because of the collaborative quality of inquiry-based schooling spoken and written discourse play a key role in the co-construction of meaning. This necessity and thus opportunity for discourse allows for what Wells describes “a greater equality of participation between teacher and students than in either teacher-directed or child-centered classrooms” (p.251). Wells explains that language has “two essential and related functions to play in achieving the goals of learning and teaching through inquiry” (p.256). He states that language is used by students to communicate all stages of the inquiry process: planning, executing, discussing, interpreting, presenting and reflecting on the line of inquiry. Without language, students would not be able to make inquiry operational. The second role language plays is intra-mental. By participating in social activity learners are able to “internalize” symbolic tools and then think and reflect (in what Wells calls the “discourse of inner speech”) on the learning experience and make deeper meaning and connections to past experiences. These two functions of language are interconnected, can happen simultaneously, and do not necessarily follow a successive order or pattern.
In this form of schooling the teacher’s role is both model and mentor to the students, or rather, apprentices. The long term goal is for students to become independent masters capable of using tools and creating new -ones thereby contributing to cultural resources and the collective cultural knowledge. Wells adds that the teacher must not only concern him or herself with sharing, demonstrating, and explaining cultural resources, but also facilitate an environment where students are encouraged to be creative innovators capable of imagining new ideas and creating and new tools.
Gordon Wells, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, writes about the potential for teachers and educators to facilitate learning experiences in which student potential and creativity are fostered in tandem with the acquisition of culturally valued knowledge. Wells suggests that an inquiry-oriented curriculum where students are guided in using and mastering cultural resources and tools is a viable approach to achieving this goal. Wells describes this type of learning environment as one in which meaning is co-constructed by and between learners and teachers. He draws heavily on the works of Vygotsky and Leontiev and speaks of the essential role linguistic discourse plays in learning both inside and out of the classroom.
For a summary of the first half of this article, see Lauren’s blog: http://mastersalacarte.blogspot.com/
The following is a brief summary of the second half of Wells’ article, pages 249-269
Cultural Resources
“…human intellectual abilities are not biologically inherited but learned through participation in social activity” (p.249).
Building on Budilova’s ideas (1972), Wells explains how humans invent tools and methods of using tools that are passed down from generation to generation. He speaks of two types of tools, practical tools, which he calls artifacts; these include such things as simple objects like pencils to more sophisticated tools like a wheelbarrow. The second type of tool is symbolic; two of Wells’ examples of symbolic tools are number systems and diagrammatic representations. Tools are created and used to solve practical and intellectual problems. By participating in an activity where a tool is being used, the learner comes to understand the function and use of the tool. During this process the learner “internalizes” what Wells calls the “associated cultural knowledge” (p.250). As learners encounter new tools, they draw on existing cultural knowledge to determine function and use while at the same time considering the context in which the tool is used. Success in mastering a tool depends on the capacity of the learner to make meaning from both cultural knowledge and new information. Wells explains that “tool-mediated problem solving” can be seen as a creative process where both “cultural continuity and the realization of individual potential resides” (p.250).
Wells extends this theory to the goals of education explaining that unlike the polarity between most educational frameworks (traditional vs. progressive, for instance) the concepts of tool-mediated problem solving can be applied at a macro level to the overall purpose of schooling, that being the perpetuation of cultural continuity as well as the development of individual potential. Wells views this conceptualization of education with the student as apprentice and the teacher as a “more expert co-participant” engaging in joint activities where knowledge is shared and new meaning co-constructed. This model allows for students to appropriate the cultural knowledge perceived most useful and necessary for becoming successful members in a given culture.
The Role of Discourse & the Teacher
Wells claims that because of the collaborative quality of inquiry-based schooling spoken and written discourse play a key role in the co-construction of meaning. This necessity and thus opportunity for discourse allows for what Wells describes “a greater equality of participation between teacher and students than in either teacher-directed or child-centered classrooms” (p.251). Wells explains that language has “two essential and related functions to play in achieving the goals of learning and teaching through inquiry” (p.256). He states that language is used by students to communicate all stages of the inquiry process: planning, executing, discussing, interpreting, presenting and reflecting on the line of inquiry. Without language, students would not be able to make inquiry operational. The second role language plays is intra-mental. By participating in social activity learners are able to “internalize” symbolic tools and then think and reflect (in what Wells calls the “discourse of inner speech”) on the learning experience and make deeper meaning and connections to past experiences. These two functions of language are interconnected, can happen simultaneously, and do not necessarily follow a successive order or pattern.
In this form of schooling the teacher’s role is both model and mentor to the students, or rather, apprentices. The long term goal is for students to become independent masters capable of using tools and creating new -ones thereby contributing to cultural resources and the collective cultural knowledge. Wells adds that the teacher must not only concern him or herself with sharing, demonstrating, and explaining cultural resources, but also facilitate an environment where students are encouraged to be creative innovators capable of imagining new ideas and creating and new tools.
Week IV Reading: September 29
Analyzing the Curriculum, George Posner, pp. 256-271
Chapter 11 – Curriculum Evaluation
Conflicting Perspectives
In chapter 11 Posner presents two contrasting views of curriculum evaluation. At the outset of the chapter he reminds us of the merits of examining differing views yet also speaks to the multifarious nature of the world – things cannot simply be divided into black and white! However, by comparing and contrasting these two different views (measurement-based and integrated evaluation) we can glean more insight into the assumptions and applications of curriculum evaluation. And now, a brief summary of each:
Measurement-based Evaluation
- similar to the “technical production model of curriculum development”
- involves the development of tests to measure learning outcomes
- the dominant form of evaluation for 40+ years
- consistent with RD&D
(see http://newideasineducation.blogspot.com/ for a summary of RD &D)
- tests administered to evaluate achievement of prespecified objectives
- lessons, materials, and activities specifically planned/ designed to help students achieve objectives & predetermined learning outcomes
- has three key purposes, each “scientifically based”: (see fig. 10.1, p. 240)
decisions about individuals
formative curriculum evaluation
summative curriculum evaluation
- evaluation instruments designed by so-called experts
- because tests are scientifically based the results should be objective
- testing needs to be efficient = group testing preferred over individual
- norm-referencing = the comparison of individual results to others
- criterion referencing = determining student ability/ understanding in regards to learning objectives (as opposed to student achievement in comparison to other students)
Integrated Evaluation
- growth-oriented
- student-controlled: increases student agency; students possess a degree of decision-making power; students determine how evaluation may be used for self-improvement
- collaborative: students and teachers determine questions to be answered together, encourages reflection and self-evaluation
- dynamic: evaluation of development as an ongoing process as opposed to a particular fixed outcome; “a cinematic metaphor” (Johnston, p. 262)
- contextualized: learning context impacts student performance and achievement; situated in the “real world”
- unlike measurement-based evaluation, integrated evaluation “emphasizes naturalistic observations, conferences, and interviews” (Johnston, p. 264)
- focus on “authentic tasks” challenges students to problem-solve not only in the classroom but in the real world
- students present/ demonstrate accomplishments
Criticism/ Challenges
Posner explains that critics of measurement-based evaluation take issue with its focus on having students perform unnatural tasks that do not necessarily reveal real world knowledge and ability (p. 261). Integrated evaluation, on the other hand, can be seen as problematic in terms of reporting student achievement to the agencies that fund and support educational programming.
My thoughts…
I mostly agree with what Lauren (http://mastersalacarte.blogspot.com/) wrote in response to Nick’s post on evaluation. Lauren highlights the potential risk for those creating tests and methods of evaluation to become “removed from the actual classroom climate.” This is particularly problematic in the generation of measurement-based evaluation tools. However, I do see how such tools can provide standardized and hopefully objective feedback on overall student achievement, which I believe fosters a sense of accountability in teachers that otherwise, might not be as prominent. At the same time, like Lauren, I question if we as educators generally test students for the “right reasons.” Lauren explains that we “must begin with the end in mind” and that the evaluation of students - and of curriculum materials - is a continuous process of assessing how students are progressing along their journey of moving towards that predetermined “end.” This is where I begin to disagree somewhat; though I believe students need clear objectives to work towards (as are always apparent in tasks that will be evaluated using the measurement-based method), I fear that explicit predetermined learning outcomes may limit the opportunity for spontaneity, discovery, and “authentic” learning. I think that if students are to become critical thinkers capable of solving real-world problems, they must be given the opportunity to stumble upon problems while on their journey towards the “end.” This requires some flexibility in coming to that end and the use of integrated evaluation might provide an opportunity for such learning. Overall, I see various pros and cons in both methods of evaluation, and like Posner states at the beginning of chapter 11, “the world cannot be neatly divided into pairs of opposites” (p. 257). Therefore, striking a balance in implementing both measurement-based and integrated evaluation is essential. Now, if only that were as easy as it sounds!
Week III Reading: September 22
Analyzing the Curriculum, George Posner, pp. 162-170
[Start of] Chapter 7 – Curriculum Organization
The “Top-Down Approach”
At the beginning of chapter 7 Posner introduces “three major perspectives on curriculum organization, derived from a structure-of-the-disciplines, a behavioural, and an experiential perspective on education” (p.163). The three organizational patterns detailed in chapter 7 are the methods called “top down,” “bottom-up,” and “project.” I will attempt to summarize Posner’s description of the “top-down” approach.
The top-down approach to curriculum organization presupposes that students will be able to derive knowledge through abstractions. It requires the capacity for learners to make inferences based on a small set of “basic truths.” In other words, from understanding a few basic truths or principles students will be able to work out other theories and through experience and observation come to know and understand how the world works. The top-down approach, also called a “hypothetical-deductive approach,” is based upon student learning of fundamental concepts and the extrapolation of meaning from this learning into other areas. Furthermore, rather than have students prove or validate a theory, the hypothetical-deductive approach involves testing a theory’s worth by attempting to falsify it.
Philosophers Karl Popper (1959) and Thomas Kuhn (1970) address how scientific theories change overtime and bring into question scientists’ adherence to theories when confronted with “falsifying evidence” (p.164). They believe an examination of scientific method ought to include the scrutinization of theoretical beliefs as well as the (re)consideration of the empirical evidence collected. Indeed, one must be prepared to abandon particular beliefs if evidence to the contrary consistently presents.
The top-down approach is based upon the structure-of-the-disciplines perspective. As we read in chapter 3, “According to the structure-of-the-discipline perspective, the primary purpose of education is the development of the intellect (King & Brownell, 1965) and the disciplines of knowledge constitute the content best suited to this purpose” (p. 99). Joseph Schwab (1962, 1964) claims that each discipline has “both ‘substantive’ and ‘syntactical’ structures” (p. 165). The substantive structures include the fundamental concepts upon which scientists base lines of inquiry, and the syntactical structures are the ways scientists recognize the legitimacy and validity of claims. Schwab states that “a discipline is a body of subject matter with a coherent set of substantive and syntactical structures” (p. 165).
Major Claims of the Top-Down Approach (p. 167)
Epistemological
- disciplines have unique qualities and structures
- structures include fundamental concepts and modes of inquiry
Psychological
-student learning process parallels inquiry process of scholars
Educational Purpose
- an understanding of each discipline’s structures (substantive & syntactical)
Curriculum
- congruence between school curriculum and disciplines of knowledge
- curricular emphasis on studying disciplines as scholars conduct inquiry
Curriculum Development
- scholars from each discipline possess the most relevant knowledge and ought to be major players in developing curricula
Criticism of the Top-Down Approach
Posner notes that not all students are able to make inferences into other areas, particulars, or applications based upon an understanding of a limited set of facts or basic truths. In other words, knowledge of a particular fundamental concept does not guarantee the ability to derive further understanding of related concepts.
Week II Reading: September 15
Analyzing the Curriculum, George Posner, pp. 23-32
In Part One: Curriculum Documentation and Origins (year) George Posner explains why and how curricula might be analyzed. He explains that not only relevant documents, instructional tools, subject matter, student ability, and “factual accuracy” need investigating, but that one must seek to understand the “assumptions underlying the curriculum” (p.23). Posner asserts that such an analysis must also include a consideration of the significance of these assumptions, particularly in regards to the context of the learning environment - from the students to the teachers, and from the classroom to the school itself and as part of a broader community. Contextualizing curricula analysis allows for what Posner calls “reflective eclecticism,” which requires an in-depth look at how the beliefs and values underlying curricula have shaped and continue to inform the development and delivery of curricula. Posner models this mode of analysis by examining the curriculum titled Man: A Course of Study (M:ACOS).
M:ACOS – a brief overview
- developed and tested by cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner with the help of social scientists Irven Devore, Nikolaas Tinbergen, and Asen Balikci between 1963 and 1970
- 5th or 6th grade social studies curriculum
- addressed three key questions:
“What is human about human beings?”
- human characteristics
- initial study of other species
- compare/contrast species’ behaviours with human behaviours
- study of Netsilik Eskimos
“How did they get that way?”
- how humans adapt
- looking at culture
- acquired vs. innate behaviour
- studies on natural selection
“How can they be made more so?”
- challenges students’ thoughts, beliefs, etc.
- examines values & humanity
- children “engage in inquiry processes”
- students share individual views
- class invited to challenge individual views
- thoughts are explored in ‘reality’ (the classroom)
-five concepts are employed and used throughout the year to explore the three questions
- each of the concepts are revisited and not treated as discrete elements
- Posner calls this approach a “spiral curriculum” (p.24).
- the five concepts are:
Toolmaking
- how & why humans make & use tools
- how tools increase capacity
Language
- what is communication?
- sending & receiving messages
- written vs. oral
Social organization
- a prominent characteristic of animal & human groups
- structure is integral yet flexible, changing
Child-rearing practices
- how offspring learn from parents
- looking at dependency, survival
- acculturation
World view (or cosmology)
- human need/desire to understand the human condition
- human need to understand the world
- meaning, purpose
- rationalizing or means of accepting the uncontrollable/ unexplainable
- art, myth, legend… culture
- Students engage with materials that allow them to observe and inquire into human behaviours, much like social scientists would (for instance, by watching unnarrated ethnographic films)
- students draw conclusions based on these observations and form their own ideas on general human behaviours either specific to or across cultures
Intro to Posner’s Analysis of M:ACOS (further detail follows in subsequent chapters)
Posner explains that the M:ACOS curriculum was a reaction to a political situation in the US in the 1960s. To answer the three main questions: “What is human about human beings?” “How did they get that way?” and “How can they be made more so?” students were directed to employ a social sciences approach, more specifically, anthropology and social psychology. M:ACOS was based upon the theoretical frameworks ‘a structure-of-the-disciplines perspective’ and a cognitive psychological perspective. Later on in the text, Posner explains how the assumptions underlying theoretical perspectives influence the development of a curriculum and how knowing the history of these perspectives may deepen the analysis of a curriculum. Posner points out that the M:ACOS curriculum lacked a set of objectives for the teacher to follow in planning lessons and asks whether or not the sole purpose of the curriculum was to have students explore the five concepts (listed above) while comparing and contrasting species and cultures in order to answer the three main questions as social scientists might do, or if perhaps the curriculum had other purposes. This question is addressed in a later chapter as are questions regarding the organization, implementation, evaluation, overall effectiveness, and weaknesses of M:ACOS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
