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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
