AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO THE CRITERIA BY
WHICH EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES MAY
BE EVALUATED

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JAMES RICHARD NORD
1969

SHErSIS

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO THE
CRITERIA BY WHICH EDUCATIONAL
OBJECTIVES MAY BE EVALUATED

presented by

James R. Nord

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

_P_h_.D_._degree inflation
I} V \ 7/
Majc

DmeSeptember 8, 1969

0-169

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATOHY STUDY INTO THE CRITERIA
BY WHICH EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
MAY BE EVALUATED

By

James Richard Nord

The purpose of this study has been to critically
analyze the concept of educational objectives through an
extensive review of the literature in order to answer four
basic questions:

1. Is there a real need for objectives in education

to be prescribed and explicitly described?

2. If so, what is the position of the educational
technologist with regard to prescribed and
explicitly stated objectives?

3. What is the role of the educational technologist
in helping to determine what objectives should be
prescribed and explicitly described?

A. What is the role of the educational technologist
in helping to determine_hgw the objectives

prescribed should be explicitly described?

Conclusions and Recommendation

 

The analysis of the first question brought out the

influence of philOSOphical biases on the need for objectives.

James Richard Nord

Two contextual distinctions were indicated. From this

it was concluded that the educational technologist who
works primarily with "pre—designed" instruction utilizing
"criterion-referenced" testing, needs to work with pre—
scribed and explicitly described objectives.

The analysis of the second question introduced
a distinction between the curriculum technologist who
was concerned primarily with the what_question of educa-
tion; and the instructional technologist who was concerned
primarily with the how question of education. It was
concluded that the former was in the position of working
toward prescribed and explicitly stated objectives using
relevance as a criteria, while the latter was more in
the position of starting with prescribed and explicitly
stated objectives as given.

The third question concerned the role of the cur-
riculum technologist. It was concluded that the primary
role of the curriculum technologist was to formalize the
policy making process. To illustrate the role, key con-
cepts in the curriculum develOpment process were identified,
and selected techniques for use in the formalization of
the process were introduced. It was concluded that the
-Pole of the curriculum technologist was primarily concerned
With evaluation and only secondarily with research.

The fourth question concerning description of

ObJectives was analyzed using three primary dimensions:

James Richard Nord

form, explicitness and level of decision making. It was
concluded that an organization of objectives indicating
both a description of the individual objectives, and their
interrelationships was perhaps the most appropriate

format of description to insure reliable communication

of meaning.

Several recommendations were made. It was recom-
mended that the distinction between curriculum technolo—
gist and instructional technolOgist be made operational
rather than merely semantic. It was further recom-
mended that those in charge of programs for educational
technologists alter their programs to recognize this
distinction. Specific recommendations to help implement
the recommendations were included.

The study included a curriculum development model
which was a synthesis of the previous analysis, and
provided a device for organizing the findings and generat-

ing further studies in the area.

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO THE CRITERIA BY
WHICH EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES MAY

BE EVALUATED

By

James Richard Nord

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1969

5H 7 5’ 5’
M70

":-’;Copyright by
JAMES RICHARD I‘JORD

1970

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The writer wishes to express his thanks and apprecia-
tion to all those persons who have contributed to the
design, development and completion of this study.

Specific thanks are expressed to Dr. Elwood E. Miller,
friend, boss and professor, for his patience, encourage—
ment and guidance as chairman of the committee; and to
Drs. John Barson, Norman Bell and Stanley Wronski, who
served as members of the advisory committee and who were
generous with their time and their suggestions during the
study. Thanks are also expressed to Al Abedor, fellow
student, editing critic and friend, for his insightful
Criticism, and his tact is expressing it.

Deepest appreciation goes to my wife and son, for
their patience and forbearance in accepting the absence
0f their husband and father during much of the time the
StUdy was in progress. To them, I can only offer myself
and my gratitude for the sacrifices and services they have
rendered.

To my wife Sueko, who not only typed and retyped the
entire manuscript throughout its many developmental
alterations, but who also provided the love, inspiration,
cOnstant encouragement and affectionate support which made

tkm realization of this goal possible, this study is

dGdicated.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES.
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter

I. THE PROBLEM

Background

Need for the Study.
Purpose of the Study
Methodology .
Organization of the Study
Definition of Terms

II. NEED AND FORMULATION OF OBJECTIVES

Overview

Question No.1 .
Philosophical Bias.
Context . .
Conclusions

Question No. 2
Instructional Technologist
Curriculum Technologist
Conclusions

Question No.3 .
Policy Formulation.
Curriculum Research
Curriculum Evaluation.
Conclusions

III. DESCRIPTION OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

Form .

Behavior

Content
Explicitness. .
Levels of Decision-Making
Organization of Objectives
Conclusions . . .

iii

Page
ii

vi

l6
l7
l7
l8

27

27
28

31

Al
A2

148
A9
51
52
75
81
92

96
97

103
109
116
125
128

Chapter
IV. A MODEL OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Models . . . . . . .

A Model of Curriculum Development
Description

Conclusions

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

Conclusions
Question
Question
Question
Question . . .

General Conclusions.

Recommendations
For Further Study
For Implementation

JZ‘UJRJI-J

BIBLIOGRAPHY

iv

Page
129

130
132
1&3
1A6

1148

150
150
152
152
15A
156
160
160
162

166

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Potential Technological Tools . . . . 14A
2. Potential Future Studies. . . . . . 1A5

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

1. First level of detail basic systems of
curriculum development

2. Second level of detail subsystems of
curriculum develOpment

3. Third level of detail

vi

Page

13A

135
1N2

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Background

 

The Educational Establishment seems to be showing

increased interest in, and placing greater importance on,

the specification of goals or objectives.

Much of this

effort appears to be oriented around the task of pre—

paring student performance objectives, or as often termed,

"defining behavioral objectives."

This emphasis placed

on stating instructional objectives in terms of what the

student should be capable of doing upon completion of

instruction appears to have evolved from four separate

but related instructional movements.

The first such movement
establishment itself, and can
With Bobbitt and Charters who
curriculum content is derived

activities and ideals . . ."1

 

activit in terms of what the
“‘ l .

was within the educational

be said to have developed
pointed out that, ". . .

from an analysis of life

and "It is good to state each

pupil will do or express."2

W. W. Charters, Curriculum Construction (New York:

 

The Macmillan Company, 19235,

p. 1A6.

2Franklin Bobbitt, How to Make a Curriculum (Boston:

 

Houshton Mifflin Co., 192115.

This movement was continued by Tyler3 and his associates
who for over 35 years have promoted the notion of describ-
ing objectives in terms of student performance after
course completion.

While this effort was going on within the educa-
tional establishment, a second movement appeared during
the past 15 years because of a need to train men for the
huge military-industrial complex. Through a massive
research effort, procedures for analyzing and describing
job tasks were developed through the efforts of such men

as Miller.

The third movement grew out of the concept of

This form of self-instruction has

5

been strongly influenced by B. F. Skinner

programed instruction.

and other

psychologists concerned with Operant conditioning. A

egreat deal of programed instruction has therefore called

IRDr an explicit a priori statement of objectives specified

3Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum
alld Instruction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1950).

”Robert B. Miller, A Method of Man—Machine Task

Aaialysis, Technical Report 53—137 (Wright-Patterson AFB,
CH1io: Wright Air Development Center, June, 1953).

5B. F. Skinner, "The Science of Learning and the
[NPt of Teaching," Teaching Machines and Programmed

Ldearning, ed. by A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser
TNashington, D. C.: DAVI, NBA, 1960).

. 6 . .
in "behavioral terms." This requirement was most

clearly stated by Mager.7

The most recent development to catch the attention
of educators, which also emphasizes the importance of

stating objectives initially and in measurable form is

9

the "systems approach." Barson,8 Miller and

TrzebiatowskilO have all explicated the requirement for
stating objectives precisely when utilizing the systems

approach to instruction. More recently, Flanaganl has

 

.6Green has pointed out that a number of reasonably
successful programs have been written where no systematic
analysis of behavior preceded their composition, and
where the statement of terminal objectives in behavioral
terms postdated the field test of the program. Edward J.
Green, "From Theory into Practice," Programed Instruction

in Medical Education, pp. 56-60, ed. by Jerome Lysaught
(Rochester, New York: Rochester Clearing House on Self—
Instruction in Medical Education, University of Rochester,

1965).

7Robert F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Objec—
‘tives (Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1962}.

8John Barson and G. M. Jones, "Instructional
fSystems Development Project" (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan
EState University, October, 196A).

9Elwood Miller, "A Descriptive Study, Evaluation
811d Analysis of Instructional Systems DevelOpment Activi-
tlies in Selected Departments at Michigan State Univer-
Sity during the period, 1960 to 196A" (unpublished Ed.D.
Ciissertation, College of Education, Michigan State
LTniversity, 1965).

10Greg Trzebiztowski, "An Evaluation of the Instruc—
tlional Systems Approach in Higher Education" (unpublished
PW1.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State

University, 1967).

11John C. Flanagan, "Functional Education for the
ieventies," Phi Delta Kappan, XLIX (September, 1967),
7-33.

proposed, and is in the initial stages of a complete
systems approach to education for the 1970's. For this,
the behavioral description of objectives is considered
an initial requirement.

These four movements formed the various currents
which have led to the present emphasis and interest in
educational objectives stated in behavioral terms. These
four movements have been the major contributors to the

present uses and abuses of behavioral objectives.

Need for the Study
Curriculum analysts such as Tylerl2 have long been
sensitive to the utility of stating objectives in per-
formance terms, but it was not until the publication and
general popularity of Mager's Preparing Instructional

fzpjectivesl3 that cautious investigation appears to have

 

lDlossomed into full scale enthusiasm. Canfield points

Out that,

In visits with people experimenting with and
applying what they termed the "instructional
systems" approach, they have without exception,
commented on their use of and dependence upon
the "Magerian" approach to the specification of
objectives for instruction."lA

l2Tyler, Basic Principles.

l3Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives.

l“Albert Canfield, "A Rationale for Performance
Objectives," Audiovisual Instruction, XIII (February,

1968), p. 127.

The State of California has recently passed a law15 which
will require each school district to rewrite their cur-

riculum in ”behavioral terms." The Washington State

Department of Education is presently in the midst of

attempts to redefine the curriculum for teacher education

throughout the state in performance terms.16

On the other hand, a reaction to the promotion of

"behavioral objectives” by their proponents has already

appeared. Broudyl7 has reacted to the slogan "Down with

nonbehavioral objectives" and referred to the "tacit

dimension"18 of knowledge as a principle counter argu—

ment. Callahan19 has found education largely influenced

by the industrial metaphor in which the first and primary
step is the formulation of quantitative and qualitative
standards by which the educational product can be judged.

lie finds in this, several tragic consequences.

15Senate Bill No. 1, State of California, 1969.

16William Drummond, symposium held at the Associa-
tfiion for Student Teaching conference, February, 1969.

17H. S. Broudy, "Research and the Dogma of

EMEhavioral Objectives" (paper presented at Annual Meet-
irlg of the American Educational Research Association,

CHdicago, 1968).

18Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (Garden City,
I\Iew York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966).

19Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of
Elfficiency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

 

6

The tragedy itself was fourfold: that educa-
tional questions were subordinated to business
considerations; that administrators were produced
who were not, in any true sense, educators; that
a scientific label was put on some very unscientific

and dubious methods and practices; and that an
anti—intellectual climate, already prevalent, was

strengthened.20

Eisner21 goes on to ask the more general question, "Do

educational objectives in any form really help or hinder
the educational process?"
What are the causes and what are the effects of

this controversy? On the surface, the causes appear to

be three separate but perhaps related points. First,
there appears to be confusion as to the role of behavioral
objectives in the educational schema. Second, there
appears to be confusion as to the meanings behind the
terms used, the slogans preached and the applications
seen. Finally, there is probably a basic philosophic

(jifference underlying the overt difference in the various
IDeople involved in the controversy.

In support of the Magerian approach to the Specifi-
<lation of objectives in behavioral terms, most current

‘vrfiters point to two principle advantages:

2OIbid., pp. 2A6-2A7.

21Elliot w. Eisner, "Educational Objectives:
I{Glp or Hindrance?" School Review, LXXV (Autumn, 1967),

pp. 250—266.

23

reliable communications22 and reliable measurement.
In the Magerian approach, the role of the objective
seems to be that of a criteria for further decision
making: for guiding instruction or evaluating the
results of instruction. A second, but equally important
role of the objective is as a statement of value, as an
indication of social priority, as a result of a policy
decision. This role has not been considered by Mager

and his followers. Mager himself has pointed out in

the preface of his book, ”This book is not concerned with
whigh objectives are desirable or good. It concerns
itself only with the form of a usefully stated objective,
rather than with its selection."2u Mager's emphasis on
the £23m of objective description implies its use as a

criteria for judging the "how” or methodology of instruc—

‘tion. It also implies the importance of the "how"

 

:itself, in education. Mager's lack of emphasis on which
(Objectives to select, regardless of its form, or even
know to select objectives, implies the complexity and the
CiifTiculty of value laden educational policy decisions.
Confusion of the two roles of educational objec-

tlives, either as a criteria for methodology, or as a value

 

 

22Robert M. Gagne, The Conditions of Learning (New
Y'Ork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19657: p. 2A3.

23Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives, p. 3.

ZuIbid., p. xii.

 

indicator, was compounded by the unwarranted inference

that the procedures recommended by Mager would enable

one to "derive" or "select" objectives. As an example
it

of this unwarranted inference, Morrill has stated, .

if Mager's procedures are followed, the objectives thus

derived will be clear, specific and measurable."25 How—

ever, no where in his book does Mager state or imply

that the procedures will enable one to "derive" objec-
tives. Indeed, no where does it state or imply a "how
to" approach for actually writing objectives in behavioral
terms. In fact, he explicitly states, "Why we have not
listed 'to know how to write objectives' as one of the
objectives of the book will become clear by the time you
have read much further."26 Having said this, he empha-
Sizes recognition and identification, but not writing
Ben'se.27 Although Mager dealt with recognizing the
£3233 in which objectives should be stated in order to be
Sggnsidered behavioral, he did not deal with procedures

(Ir methodology by which one could "write" or "derive"

(ijectives.

25Charles S. Morrill, "Setting Programmed Instruc-
tlion Objectives Using Systems Methodology," Trends in

Eflgogrammed Instruction, ed. by G. D. Ofiesh and W. C.
D’Ieierhenry (Washington: National Education Association,

19614), p. 51.
26Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives, p. 3.

27Ibid., p. 2.

Thus, the writings of Mager and other proponents
of "behavioral objectives" tend to emphasize reliability,
form and recognition, while avoiding the problems of
writing, derivation and selection. Several have recog—
nized selection and value judgments as part of the
problem, but then most avoid the issue or consider it
someone else's problem. As Weaver has put it, "A good
many current writers in the field seem rather evasive on
the subject of values: they admit that the problem of
values has to be faced; but then they merely circle it
and leave the specific values to shift for themselves."28
It is of course, a value judgment to concentrate on
form and avoid value. Wiener has expressed criticism
of this philosophy which places emphasis on the "how"
at the expense of the "what."

Our papers have been making a great deal of
American "know-how" ever since we had the mis-
fortune to discover the atomic bomb. There is
one quality more important than "know-how" and
we cannot accuse the United States of any undue
amount of it. This is "know—what" by which we
determine not only how to accomplish our purposes,
but what our purposes are to be.29

(Dettinger makes the same point more succinctly, when he

Says, ". . . asking how or how well is silly unless we

 

¥

28Richard M. Weaver, "Concealed Rhetoric in

53cientific Sociology," Scientism and Values, ed. by
Iielmut Schoeck and James W. Wiggins (Princeton, N.J.:
[3. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1960).

2
9Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings
(New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 195“), p. 183.

 

 

10

know what."30 Brameld paraphrases the argument when in

reference to the current focus on technolOgy and tech-

nological devices he says,

In contemporary perspective, their danger,
indeed loom larger than their promises. For by
concentrating public as well as professional
attention upon dramatic technological devices,
they also succeed in diverting attention from
the more elusive but far more fundamental question

of the individual and cultural purposes that such
devices ought to advance, and by which alone it

can be justified.3l

So it may be that by concentrating public as well as
professional attention upon the form of the objectives,
we have succeeded in diverting attention from the more
elusive but far more fundamental question of the £313:
yangg or zalug of the objective. One result of the

emphasis on form has been the masking of a more funda-

mental question, "Is it necessary to state educational

<Dbjectives in any explicit form at all?" There appears

1:0 be two basic positions in response to this question.

Bloom32 trys to summarize the positions of both

ESides. He points out that teachers appear to respond to

‘

3OAnthony Oettinger, "The Myths of Educational
Ikechnology," Saturday Review, May 18, 1968, p. 77.

31Theodore Brameld, "Changes in American Education
1J1 the Next Decade: Some Predictions," Innovations in
Efifiucation, ed. by Matthew B. Miles (New York: Bureau of
1Dublications, Teachers College, Columbia University,

196A), p. 627.

32Benjamin S. Bloom, "Some Theoretical Issues
Iielating to Educational Evaluation,“ Educational Evalua-
Siipn: New Roles New Menas (The Sixty-eighth Yearbook of
13he National Society for the Study of Education, Part II
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).

 

11

individual students during the instructional period, and
they appear to alter procedures and interactions rapidly
as they focus on the needs of the individual and sub-
groups in the class. They seem to vary within a certain
plan or procedure. They seem oriented to some purpose.
When probed however, the teachers have difficulty in
explicitly stating their objectives or in relating what
they do in class to a set of long-term objectives for
either the students or the subject matter.

Bloom points out that curriculum-makers have great
difficulty in getting subject matter experts to state
their objectives in other than the most general and vague
terms. Yet the subject matter experts become much more
explicit in defining the content that should be learned,
and are often quite skillful in suggesting instructional
procedures to make explicit the ways in which they would
like the interaction among the teacher, student and
learning material to take place.33

Thus it appears that many educators can and do
Operate in a practical everyday educational context
without "behavioral objectives" or any explicit objectives
to guide them.

Quite in contrast to the teacher's reluctance to

State or use specification of learning outcomes, Bloom

DOints out, is the rather avid use of specifications by

g

33Ibid., p. 26.

12

persons working with instructional technology and/or
evaluation. Workers preparing instructional materials
seem to find it difficult if not impossible to determine
what to include in programmed instruction material,
computer assisted instruction, educational films, or
other learning materials-—unless they know precisely what
is to be learned by the students. Persons constructing
evaluation instruments to be used by more than a single
teacher or a single school also find it difficult to
begin their work until a set of specifications are pro-
vided.3u

If one were to accept at face value, the various
comments made by teachers and curriculum-makers on the
one hand, and instructional technologists and evaluators
on the other, one might hypothesize a real conflict, a
set of contradictory answers to the question about a need
for objectives. However, according to Bloom, if one
probes deeper, it is quite likely that all four groups
have an implicit set of objectives in mind which differ

35

only in explicitness, detail and form. Regardless of
Whether one is a student, teacher, administrator,
Curriculum-maker, instructional technologist, evaluator

Or researcher, it would seem virtually impossible to

engage in an educational enterprise of any duration without

fl

3uIbid., p. 27.

35Ibid.

13

having some notion of goals, outcomes or objectives for
guidance. Bloom points out that, "What may be different
from worker to worker is the explicitness of the speci-
fications, the forms in which they are cast, the sources
from which they are derived, and the extent to which they
are used for various decisions."36
What are the alternative positions that can be
taken by the educational technolOgist in this controversy
over the need for educational objectives. One position
seems to be that of the educational technologist who
"knows" what is right and insists on telling the rest of
the world. In this position, the educational technologist
insists that all objectives must be stated a priori to
instructional development, and specified in behavioral
terms, preferably in Magerian form. Those who elect this
position might, however, take a warning from the military-
industrial training establishment. There, pressures to
define objectives in behavioral terms were established by
authoritarian decree, and have been continued now for
over 10 years. The effect, as reported by Ammerman and

Melching, is that attempts to develop behavioral type

Objectives often represent little more than an exercise in

36Ibid., p. 28.

1A

semantics, or a restatement of existing test items.37
Moreover, "One of the tragic features of the uncritical
acceptance of authority opinion is that it is usually
followed by disillusionment and reaction."38 Thus in
the military "As a consequence of misconceptions about
the nature, use and worth of student performance objec—
tives, efforts to use them have led to dissatisfaction

with the concept."39

Does education and educational
technology have to make this same mistake? Are the
whispers of discontent over behavioral objectives a pre-
face to the thunder of disapproval to come? It is con-
ceivable that behavioral objectives, like other useful
educational concepts given us by men like Aristotle,
Bacon, Dewey, Freud, Mager, Whitehead and Zacharias, may
be rejected by educators after the first fad of blind
acceptance has passed.

In conclusion, the question arises, what should
the position of the educational technologist be on this

issue? Should he work with peOple as they are, or should

he try to change them? Should he promote specific

R

37Harry L. Ammerman, and William H. Melching, The
Vggrivation,Analysis and Classification of InstructiofiEI
ngectives, TechnicaI'Report 66LHTTAIExandrla, Va."
Human—Resources Research Office, The George Washington
University, May, 1966), p. A.

38Walter R. Borg, Educational Research: An Intro-
duction (New York: David McKay Company, 1963), p. 5.

39Ammerman and Melching, Instructional Objectives,
p0 370

 

15

explicit behavioral objectives written in Magerian form?
or more general behavioral objectives written in Tyler's
style? or should he forget all about behavioral objec—
tives? Should he pursue slogans or understanding?
Should be change himself or others? Taylor warns us to

"know thyself!"

It is an accepted adage that 'to compel change
without understanding is nothing more than arrogance.
To insist on changing another person's way of life,
merely because of an insular, unread belief in one's
own vieWpoint is an act of tyranny, therefore, since
most educational planning tacitly, if not openly,
assumes that changes ('for the better') will be made,
to do so without first ascertaining the present state
of education as it relates to the total culture
pattern, is to perpetuate an arrogant injustice and
possibly to do great harm. Once again, what is
obviously needed is an understanding of culture
values and a studied assessment of the degree to
which the present culture helps people to express
those values and attain the goals which are inherent
in them. Once these matters are understood, then a
realistic judgment can be made as to whether or not
the values, the educational system, or any other AG
part of the culture needs modification or change.

Before the educational technologist can assume a well
thought out and justifiable position regarding the deriva-
tion, use and form of educational objectives, he must
become aware of the complex interaction of many factors.
At present, the technologist has no theoretical frame of
reference to guide him, he has no systematic method for

making decisions, or choosing his tools. At present, the

‘—

uOWalter Taylor, quoted in Florence R. Kluckholn,

"Variations in Value Orientations as a Factor in Educa-

tional Planning," in Behavioral Science Frontiers in

Education, ed. by Eli M. Bower and William G. Hollister
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 312.

l6

technologist acts primarily out of faith, and hence the

issues lie fermenting.

Purpose of the Study

 

This study is designed to illuminate the variety
of interacting forces at work in any decision—making
process concerning educational objectives. Furthermore
it should force heretofore implicit, partial judgments
into explicit form in which they can be systematically
examined, their applicability tested, and their internal
consistency explored.

Specifically, the purpose of this study is to seek
tentative answers to four complex questions:

1. Is there a real need for objectives in
education to be prescribed and explicitly
described?

2. If so, what is the position of the educational
technologist with regard to prescribed and
explicitly stated objectives?

3. What is the role of the educational technolo—
gist in helping to determine what objectives
should be prescribed and explicitly described?

A. What is the role of the educational technolo—
gist in helping to determine h2w_the objectives

prescribed should be explicitly described?

.r‘

1"

l'

17

Methodology

 

As an exploratory study, the methodology consists
primarily of an extensive review and critical analysis
of the existing literature. Research studies and
scholarly writing related to educational objectives from
both the point of view of whah objectives to use, and haw
the objectives are used, are analyzed and interpreted.
Concepts which appear most relevant are made explicit
and then related in a generalized model. An empirical
validation of the model is not intended as parcel of the
research design. Rather the objective is to design a
vehicle capable of organizing facts into a more meaning-

ful structure, to serve as a guide to future research

efforts.

Organization of the Study

This exploratory study is developed in five chapters.
Chapter I begins with the statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, the methodological approach and
finally some comments on the definition of terms. Chapter
II includes an extensive and critical review of pertinent
literature concerned with the need and formulation of whah
educational objectives the educational community are and/
Or should be concerned with. Chapter III continues with a
Peview of pertinent literature which concentrates on haw
tile educational objectives selected are and/or should be

C1escribed. Chapter IV then describes a theoretic model

18

to summarize and relate the findings of the previous
analyses. The final chapter undertakes to summarize the
conclusions of the study, to discuss their importance,

and to make final recommendations for further study.

Definition of Terms

Traditionally, a definition of terms is given at
this point. With a study of this nature, the assumption
upon which this tradition is based, is questioned, for
reasons which will become clear later.

Initially, we will distinguish between two types
of discourse: scientific and non-scientific; and hence
two broad categories in which a definition of terms might
be used. Scheffler points out that

. . . definitions in science are all, in an
important sense, technical in purport and call
for special knowledge and the use of special
theoretical criteria in their evaluation. In
scientific communications, definitions are
presented and interpreted accordingly by pro- Al
fessional members of the scientific community.

Rudner, in discussing the use of definitions in scientific

discourse, points out that

. . . a definition is a stipulation that, if a
statement is true, it will remain true after the
replacement of any of its terms by definitionally
equivalent terms-—and correspondingly for a false
statement.A2

ullsrael Scheffler, The Language of Education
(Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1960),

E). 12.

“2Richard S. Rudner, "Structure and Function of
ESCientific Theories," Theory for the New Media in Educa-
tZion, ed. by John M. Parsey (East Lansing, Mich.: “M3

19

The question is raised, does this type of definition
help one to avoid semantic difficulty later? Does it
have any thing to do with conveyance of meaning? In
a section titled definition of terms, is one concerned
with a stipulation of equivalence, or is one concerned
with a conveyance of meaning? For the scientific
definition, Rudner points out,
. . . little reflection is needed to reveal
that a conveyance of meaning is not a necessary,
and certainly not a sufficient condition to be
fulfilled by a definition.A3
It is not a sufficient condition, for meanings
are conveyed by an‘imfiénsely large number of
things (from the tilt of an eyebrow to the tilt

of a B—59 wing) which it would be absurd to refer
to as "definitions."AA

 

That it is not necessary for a definition to
convey meaning is evinced’by the existence of the
great number of definitions in purely formal
mathematics and logic which do not convey mean—
ings and which are introduced solely to serve
the purpose of notational convenience.A5

 

While it becomes clear that scientific definitions
do not need to convey meanings, and often do not, it is

also obvious that they sometimes do, and that they are

 

R v *—

Educational Publication Services, College of Education,
Michigan State University, 1968), p. A0.

qubid.

“51bid.

2O

frequently constructed for the purpose of doing so.
Nevertheless, the distinction between a definition of
terms and a conveyance of meaning of a term is a crucial
one. It is in fact the existence of this distinction
which throws doubt upon the prOpriety which so called
"operational definitions" and "ostensive definitions"
are thought of as scientific definitions. Rudner adds
to this point when he continues,

In the light of this discussion, "operational
definition" and "ostensive definition" are
recognizable as misnomers. They refer, respec-
tively to: (l) the processes of conveying the
meaning of a term by indicating the operations
required to test for the presence of the thing
to which that term refers, and (2) the processes
of conveying the meaning of a term by exhibiting
the things to which the term refers.A6

If the distinction between scientific and non—

scientific discourse is valid, and the distinction

between equivalence and conveyance of meaning, helpful,
then one must ask the questions, "Is education a science?"
and "Are we interested in equivalence or conveyance of
meaning?" If one is not interested in a scientific

theory in education for which specific "scientific"
definitions are required, and for which there is a
theoretic corpus for reference, then we must consider

educational discourse, non-scientific. In discourse

addressed to the general public in debates over

‘

u6Ibid.

 

21

educational policy, it would seem that one would be more
concerned with conveyance of meaning than with equiva-
lence. In this paper, an exploratory study conCerned
with educational objectives, it would seem that one is
concerned primarily with conveyance of meaning in a non-
scientific discourse. The question must now be asked,
"What type of definitions are applicable to non-
scientific discourse and do they in fact help convey
meaning?"

In his book, The Language of Education,“7 Scheffler
distinguishes three types of definitions in non-scientific
discourse: the stipulative, the descriptive and the
programmatic. In Scheffler's terms, a stipulative
definition is one which calls for the interpretation of
terms within certain contexts, without regard to familiar
prior usage. It is saying, "This is precisely what I
will mean by the word, regardless of what other may mean."
However, stipulative definitions do not apply to quoted
material and the readers must therefore infer what the
original author meant; which could be quite different from
the definition given in a priori stipulative definition of
terms.

A descriptive definition on the other hand, is not

 

a stipulative assertion that such and such will by El

Ilse of the term, but rather a definition which purports to

‘

u7Scheffler, The Language of Education.

x.

22

adequately describe what is being defined. A dictionary

 

attempts to provide descriptive definitions, but not
infrequently, several definitions are given for a word.
For example, £22 a footrace, hah for president, the hhh
in the stocking, or the colors hhh, all call for a
separate definition in a dictionary, but the dictionary
does not offer us some arbitrary way of choosing whaah
definition, this is determined by the specific context.
On the other hand, some words such as democracy, education
and murder, are symbolic for concepts which themselves
are open-ended and can never be defined in a complete
sense.”8

The third form of definition Scheffler refers to

is a programmatic definition, which tells us overtly or

 

implicitly that this is the way things should be. With
this type of definition we have a program of practical
application suggested. Implicit in this type of defini-
tion is a prescriptive or normative statement. A moment's
reflection will indicate that many of the definitions in
education are of this third type. For example Lumsdaine's

stipulative definition of instruction“9 includes the

 

“8H. S. Broudy, Othanel B. Smith, and Joe R.

Burnett, Democragy and Excellence in American Secondary
Education (New York: Rand, McNally, 196A), p. 130.

“9A. A. Lumsdaine, "Instruments and Media of
Instruction," Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. by
N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963),
p. 58A.

 

 

23

prescription, not just description, that measurability
should be one of the attributes.

Scheffler summarizes the three types of non-
scientific definitions, by indicating the interest under-
lying each sort.

The interest of stipulative definitions is com-
municatory; that is to say, they are offered in
the hope of facilitating discourse; the interest
of descriptive definitions is explanatory, that is,
they purport to clarify the normal application of
terms; the interest of programmatic definition is
moral, that is, they are intended to embody programs
of action.50
The question is now raised, "Which, if any of these
types of definitions should be used in a definition of
terms section of a non-scientific discourse?" The purposes
each serves are all perfectly legitimate and there is no
call to decide for or against some set or to rank them
in some scale of value, or even to pit any or all of them
against scientific definitions. As Scheffler points out,
It makes no difference whether the definitions
offered in such contexts are put forward on
scientific authority or not; the important fact
is that thay are presented not as technical
statements interwoven with special scientific
research and for theoretical purposes, but rather
as general communications in a practical context.51
The basic problem encountered, is that to offer any non-

scientific definition of a term in a purposeful field

like education, is often to convey a program in a

 

50Scheffler, The Language of Education, p. 22.

 

51Ibid., p. 12.

2A

moralistic "ought to" sense. The programmatic character
of such definitions means that they require evaluation
with respect to the program conveyed. The point made is
simply that a definition of terms, particularly the criti-
cal terms in an educational discourse of an exploratory
nature is not an a priori step. As Scheffler puts it,
"It is just because definitions of the latter sort are
programmatic that their adoption should follow rather than
precede a moral and practical evaluation of the programs
they convey."52 Or as Soltis has put it,

A definition of a clock as a time piece may be

helpful but if you really want to get a working

understanding of clocks, a careful disassembly

of a clock and a diligent examination of each

piece to see how it functions would certainly be

more instructive.53

Thus, rather than presenting an a priori definition

of terms which often involve the programmatic aspect dis—
cussed, it was considered better to first analyze and
discuss issues, and then to define terms after the dis-
cussion. At this stage however, it was considered
necessary to warn the reader of the inherent ambiguity
within language itself, and the effect it can have on

communication and understanding, unless particular

attention is paid to it. As Richards has pointed out,

 

52Ibid., p. 3A.

53Jonas F. Soltis, An Introduction to the Analysis
of Educational Concepts (New York: Addison-Wesley Pub—
lishing Company, 1968), p. 7.

 

 

25

The kind of attention to language I have in
mind can be described as systematic study of the
inherent and necessary opportunities for misufidgr-
standing which language offers. 'Language offers
them, I say: but indeed it insists upon them.
Words could not do their work unless they could
rightly mean many more things than any one man
in any one view can see them as meaning.5A

 

One reason for the disillusionment which seems to
accompany the first failure following the flush of popu—
larity of a newly introduced concept may be the deteriora-
tion of itymeaning through the ignorant use of the term.
Educators appear to be very susceptable to a psychological
disease called "parrot fever." Every time a new concept
and attendant terminolOgy comes out, there appears to be
an epidemic of repeating the buzz words heard, without
conceptualizing the meaning. As Richards has pointed
out,

Every language is under constant attack by the

tongues of its less expert users. One has only
to watch . . . the degradation of such learned

words, when used without awareness of their
implications, to see that they need protection.

55
An arbitrary set of definitions of terms cannot by itself
serve to protect any words, but a more acute awareness of

some of the problems of language and meaning might make

the blurring less damaging.

 

5“I. A. Richards, Speculative Instruments (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 19557, p. 7A.

551. A. Richards, Design for Escape: World Educa-
tion Through Modern Media (New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World, Inc., 1968), p. 73.

 

 

 

I\)
O\

Our thought here is akin to that of Korzybski,
that when human beings realize that certain
general terms have a variety of distinct meanings,
the effect of this realization is definitely
prOphylactic against misunderstanding, prejudice
and intolerance.56

 

56George D. Birkhoff, "Mathematics of Aesthetics,"
Vol. IV of The World of Mathematics, ed. by James R.
Newman. A vols. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956),
p. 2208.

 

CHAPTER II

NEED AND FORMULATION OF OBJECTIVES

Overview

In this chapter three questions will be asked,
and after an analysis of the pertinent literature, tenta—
tive conclusions will be attempted. The first question
to be asked, will be, "Is there a real need for objectives
in education to be prescribed and explicitly described?"
Various points of view will be presented and analyzed,
and two possible causes for the differences of opinion
will be offered. No simple yes or no answer will be
attempted, but sufficient evidence to support further
investigation of the second question in more specific
contexts will be considered given. The second question to
be asked will then be, "If so, what is the real need of
the educational technologist to work with prescribed and
explicitly stated objectives?" An analysis of the litera-
ture will introduce a distinction between a curriculum
technologist and an instructional technologist. The need
of each will then be considered separately. Finally,
tentative answers to the third question, "What is the
role of the educational technologist in helping to deter-
mine whah objectives should be prescribed and explicitly

27

28

described?" will be attempted. This will be done through
an analysis of the literature concerned with role of a
curriculum technologist in terms of policy formation,
curriculum research and curriculum evaluation. Because
this is an exploratory study, most of the conclusions

are tentative, much of the literature is indirectly
related through analogy and transfer, and some of the
findings may appear contradictory. Nevertheless, the
questions appear crucial to a better understanding of the
concept-of educational objectives, and therefore some
judgments no matter how tentative would appear to aid in
the clarification of the concept and the role of the

educational technologist in relationship to it.

Question No. l

 

Is there a real need for objectives in education
to be prescribed and explicitly described?

Despite multiple appeals by various curriculum

3,A

expertsl’2 and psychologists to prescribe and explicitly

 

1C. M. Lindvall, ed., Defining Educational Objec-

tives (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 196A).
2Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum

and Instruction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1950).

3Robert M. Gagne, The Conditions of Learning (New
York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1965).

 

 

”Robert F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Ohjec-
tives (Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1962).

 

29

state objectives in order to improve instruction, evidence
is mounting which questions the very need of educational

5 Bloom6 has indicated

objectives in the classroom.
teachers interact systematically with their classes, but
have difficulty in explicitly stating their objectives.
Instructional technologists often find this hard to

believe and difficult to accept. It should be remembered
however, that what is a force within the field of curricu-
lum, e.g., belief in the importance of stating objectives
explicitly, and preferably behaviorally, is not necessarily
a force in the implementation of curricula, i.e., objec—

7

tives, in the classrooms. For example, Bialek investi-
gated how teachers perceive objectives in terms of their
importance or desirability. He reported, in part, that

many teachers apparently do not feel that it is essential

for certain categories of students to reach any objectives

at all. Others have also discovered similar results.

 

5Elliot W. Eisner, "Educational Objectives: Help
or Hindrance?" School Review, LXXV (autumn, 1967),

 

6Benjamin S. Bloom, "Some Theoretical Issues
Relating to Educational Evaluation," Educational Evalua-
tion: New Roles, New Means. The Sixty-Eighth Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part
II (ghicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1969),
p. 2 .

 

. 7Hilton M. Bialek, "A Measure of Teacher's Percep—
tions of Bloom's Educational Objectives" (paper presented
to the American Educational Research Association, Presidio
of Monterey, Calif., February, 1967).

3O

Ammonsg for example, produced evidence that (a) some
school systems do not have objectives to guide their
educational programs, (b) school systems do not follow
recommended curriculum processes to develOp their instruc-
tional objectives, and (c) teachers base their programs
on what they customarily have done rather than on the
system's educational objectives. Walker summarizes the
point of view when he states,
It is commonly thought that the formulation

of educational objectives is an essential part

of curriculum planning, yet observations of

curriculum development projects indicate that

educational objectives, behavioral or otherwise

play at best a peripheral role in many of them.9

What are the causes of this divergence of views con-

cerning the use and value of objectives in education?
What are the reasons some people consider objectives as
critically important in the educational process, while
others evaluate them as insignificant? There are probably
many. Two of these, considered important by the author
will beexamined next. First, there is the dimension of
need as felt need, a personal insistence on explicitness

or acceptance of implicitness, a drive to sensory percep—

tion as a mode of knowing or an acceptance of intuitive

 

8Margaret Ammons, "An Empirical Study of Process and
Product in Curriculum Development," Journal of Education
Research, LVII (196A), A51-A57.

 

9Decker F. Walker, "A Study of Types of Goal State-
ments and Their Uses in a Curriculum DevelOpment Project"
(paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Los Angeles, February, 1969).

.a.

 

31

feelings for knowing. In other words, there is an assump—
tion that the philOSOphical bias of the individual colors
the attitude toward educational objectives. This assump-
‘tion will be examined in greater depth.

Next, there is the dimension of need in terms of
context, of differences in instructional conditions and
differences in usage of the objectives in those instruc-
tional conditions. A distinction made by Gagne between
"extemporaneous design" and"pre—design"10 helps point
out different attitudes toward educational objectives
based on differences in instructional conditions, while a
distinction made by Merwinll between "norm-referenced"
and "criterion-referenced" testing helps point out possible
differences in attitudes toward objectives based on dif—

ferences in usage.

Philospphical Bias

 

A major problem in any evaluation of a concept, is
the effect of underlying philos0phica1 biases. When a
concept is termed good or bad, right or wrong, important
or insignificant, the concept has been evaluated, that is,

it has been matched against some criteria and found

 

10Gagne, The Conditions of Learning, p. 251.

11Jack C. Merwin, "Historical Review of Changing
Concepts of Evaluation," Educational Evaluatiph: New
Roles, New Means, The Sixty-Eighth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago, 111.:
The University Of Chicago Press, 1969), pp. 21.

 

 

32

acceptable or wanting. As long as the criteria is
explicitly expressed, it is open to observation. When

it is based on a philosophical bias, it is implicit, sel-
dom open to question. Most peOple operate within some
epistemological system of criteria for making fundamental
judgments of belief. These systems are different from
person to person, and hence the criteria are different.

In normal discourse, these differing standards are seldom
made explicit, but are always Operating implicitly. Hence
educators, evaluating a given concept, such as an educa-
tional objective, may unknowingly evaluate the objective
in terms of defensible, yet antagonistic criteria. The
confusing results of such evaluations may be reduced, if
not avoided, if the implicit assumptions and criteria

of the conflicting epistemological positions are made some-
what more explicit.

A review of the various conflicting epistemological
positions was thus considered helpful in assessing the
reasons why some people tend to consider prescribed and
explicitly stated objectives as important, while others
consider them insignificant. While there may be others,
this discussion will be limited to the four major episte-
mological "schools" or "rationalism," "intuitionalism,"

"empiricism," and "authoritarianism." Roycel2 discusses

 

12Joseph R. Royce, The Encapsulated Man (Princeton:
D. Van Norstrand Company, Inc., 196A).'

 

33

each and points out the criterion for accepting "reality”
"truth" or "knowledge,” of each school. For example,
rationalism is ". . . that epistemological position which
states that nothing is true if it is illogical."l3 He
points to mathematics as the best example of the rational
means of knowing.

Mathematics is the example of rationalism pah

excellence. In mathematics we look for no

phenomena other than the logical consistency of
the various postulates and deductions.lA

 

A second category of knowing is intuitionalism.
"The intuitionalist claims that he knows by immediate or

obvious apprehension."15

Royce points out that intuition
may be a matter of the immediate perception of gestalts,
or an indifferentiated or primitive mixture of thinking
and sensory processes (epistemologically, a mixture of
rationalism and empiricism).l6 The criterion for intui—
tion has been referred to as "insight” or the "seeing the
significant, in the insignificant." But it is the vague-
ness of the epistemological criterion which has marked it
as suspect by many even though it seems to have endured

over time as a device for ”knowing" in the minds of

countless others.

 

13Ibid., p. 1A.

1”Ibid., p. 19.
15

16

Ibid., p. 1A.

Ibid., p. 16.

3A

Empiricism, according to Royce, ". . . is that
approach to knowledge which states that we know something
via sensory experience."17 The criterion for this type
of knowing is not a dichotomy, but lies on a continuum
of perception on one end to misperception on the other
end.

"By authoritarianism we simply mean that we know

"18 The criteria for this

on the basis of authority.
approach to reality range from viable ideology to delusion,
and are based on accepted belief.
Belief, as an approach to reality, is unavoidable

on a variety of counts. . . . If a man had to

empirically test all matters of fact for himself,

logically prove all items of rationality, etc., he

should simply find himself overburdened. In short,

practicality demands that he accept certain findings

on the basis of authorative reports from those who

.are supposed to know.l9
Belief or authoritarianism as a legitimate approach to
knowledge is necessary because in the last analysis, all
other approaches get pushed to this approach. Whenever
conflicting epistemological positions are raised to the
meta-epistemological level (criteria for the criteria of
knowledge), one finds arbitration is not possible.
Epistemological criteria is ultimately a function of

personal, arbitrary and subjective beliefs. In light

 

17Ibid., p. 13.

18Ibid., p. 17.

19Ibid.

35

of this, the criteria for evaluation of educational
objectives are equally arbitrary--and a useful evaluation
is performed only if the evaluators are aware, or are
made aware of their personal and possibly conflicting
belief systems.

In any field, in any discipline, it becomes obvious
that one "knows" on the basis of all modes of understand-
ing. One "feels," "thinks," "senses," and "believes."
One accepts the criteria of logic, insight, perception
and ideology. Yet, many educational technologists, tend
to "identify" with the scientist, and tend to give greater
credence to one or more of the four ways of knowing.

The scientist "feels," "thinks," "senses," and
"believes," in his work as a scientist. That is,

he "knows" via rationalism, intuitionism, empiricism,
and authoritarianism. However, he has learned over
the centuries that, for his purpose, intuitive and
authoritarian ways of knowing can be very dangerous
and that they must be guarded against. . . . In
epistemological terms, he maximizes the rational

and empirical approaches and minimizes the involve—
ment of intuitionism and authoritarianism.20

In science there is a marriage between the two
epistemologies of rationalism and empiricism. In other
words, the scientific community give greater credence to
a pair of criteria, logic and perception. Within any one
scientist, as within any one marriage, there is usually a

dominant partner. Which criteria, logic or perception,

which approach, theory or observation, which epistemology,

 

201bid., p. 21.

36

rationalism or empiricism has the dominant role within
the individual scientist will greatly influence his
"scientific" approach to problems.

An interesting study by Klausner seems to indicate
that the dominant criteria in any one scientist is influ-
enced by several factors including his background, his
personality type, age and the type of working he is doing.

Klausner found that,

The tendency to be empiricistic, to use observa—
tion terms, increases when a researcher is working
in a field not his own, when he is a younger pro—
fessional, when his personality tends to be intro—
verted, when he is a non-Catholic, and when he is
politically conservative. All of these tend to be
characteristics associated with the lack, either
actual or by desire, of the attitude we have named
certitude.2l

He also points out the other side of the coin.

The greater proportion of theoretical terms are
used as indicators (the rationalistic orientation)
in the research reports of individuals working in
their own field when they are older professionals,
extroverted, Catholic, or politically liberal.

These are character associated with enjoying
certitude.22

What is said of an individual can also be said of
a collected group of individuals. We live today in a
society in which the empiricism criteria of "seeing is

believing" is next in priority to "God, Mother and Apple

pie." We live in a society where "science" has a tendency

 

21Samuel Z. Klausner, "Rationalism and Empiricism

in Studies of Behavior in Stressful Situations," Behavioral

 

Science, XI (September, 1966), p. 339.

22Ibid., p. 3A0.

37

to replace the first of these in the mind of many. This
is not a healthy situation. Whitehead sounded the warning

horn when he said:

This situation has its dangers. It produces
minds in a groove. Each profession makes progress,

but it is progress in its own groove. Now to be
mentally in a groove is to live in contemplating
a given set of abstractions. The groove prevents
straying across country, and the abstraction
abstracts from something to which no further
attention is paid. But there is no groove of
abstractions which is adequate for the comprehen-
sion of human life. Wisdom is the fruit of a
balanced development.23
Marcuse2u continues the orchestration against the "one
dimensional mind," while Royce25 blows his own horn in
the plea against the "encapsulated man." The dominance
of one criteria over another is probably an inherent
necessity for any one individual and can not be strongly
praised or condemned. As an aggregate however, it may
be that Nil Bohr's principle of complementarity contains
a lesson for all. Bohr showed that if one studies the

position of a particle one cannot at the same time study

its momentum. ,Allport relates this to psychology.

 

23Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern
World (New York: The Macmillan Company, 19257: p. 176.

2”Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man (Boston:

Beacon Press, 196A).
25

 

Royce, The Encapsulated Man.

KAI
\«
W

Applied to our own work the principle tells us

that if we focus on reaction we cannot simul-

taneously study proaction; if we measure one trait

we cannot fix our attention on pattern; if we

tackle a subsystem we lose the whole; if we pursue

the whole we overlook the part-functioning. For

the single investigator there seems to be no

escape from this limitation. Our only hope is to

overcome it by a complementarity of investigators

and of theorists.26
Applied to the evaluation of educational objectives,
educators perhaps cannot as individuals concentrate on
the description of the objectives without losing sight
of the formulation. The criteria for value judgment may
be different from the criteria used for measurement. In
considering what criteria people in education should use
for evaluating educational objectives, perhaps it is best
if they accept the complementarity of criteria, and of
all the professions, attempt to remain as unencapsulated,

and multi-dimensional as possible. If educators do not,

who will?

Context

Another cause of divergent thinking about educa-
tional objectives may be the problem of using similar
terms in dissimilar contexts. Gagne has called attention
to a relevant distinction between two major types of
instructional conditions which may very well create dif-

ferent needs for educational objectives. These he has

‘

26Gordon W. Allport, "The Open System in Personality
Theory," Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral
§gientist, ed. by Walter Buckley (Chicago: Aldine Pub-
Lishing Company, 1968), p. 350.

 

39

27.

termed "extemporaneous design" and "pre—design."\’u
Another dimension of the problem is the use made of the
objectives within either condition. Merwin28 has pointed
out a distinction in the changing concepts of evaluation
which has direct influence on the use of objectives in
evaluation, and hence on attitudes toward objectives.
This is the distinction between normative and standards
approach to testing, or "norm—referenced" testing and
"criterion-referenced" testing. Each set of distinctions
will be discussed in turn.

"Extemporaneous" instruction is primarily associated
with the human medium because instructional conditions
are designed "on the spot" as the instruction proceeds.
This is a closed-loop system of operation in which the
changing goals and objectives of the students, alter and
modify the goals and objectives of the teacher. It is
like a "goal-seeking" rocket that changes its course of
action depending upon the behavior of the target. Feed-
back from the students, often partial, and intuitively
judged, is used to alter, modify or change both the method
of instruction and the objectives of day, to meet the
interests, needs or concerns of the students at the time.
This kind of interaction with students is considered by

many teachers as one of their most important functions.

¥

27
28

Gagne, The Conditions of Learning, p. 251.

 

Merwin, "Historical Review of Evaluation," p. 21.

A0

In this situation, specific objectives and predetermined
goals seem less relevant than in more structured situa-
tions such as those using pre—designed instructional
materials.

In "pre-design" instruction, non-human media are
often involved which cannot be altered once created.

These call for preplanned, pre—aimed and ready to use
"software." Thus Open loop (non—feedback) systems such
as films, TV, lectures and textbooks, place an extra
demand on the initial determination of objectives, of the
target, since there is not much possibility for a mid—
course correction. For this type of instruction, objec—
tives must be prescribed and explicitly described.

The second distinction concerns the use of objec—
tives in the evaluation of instruction. Formerly, evalua-
tion and testing of students was concerned primarily with
differentiating between the students. Tests were designed
to accentuate the difference between the students. The
scores were based upon a normative scale, or student's
achievement relative to other student's achievement. This
is known as "norm-referenced" testing. For this type of
testing, the objective did not have to be very specific.
It only had to point a direction, and give a broad base
upon which to establish the testing norms. In this type
Of testing, one is interested more in the difference in
the achievement of the students themselves rather than in

lPelationship to some standard or criterion.

A1

When programed instruction insisted however, upon
a validation of the instruction itself, rather than
evaluating the students by their own norms, new test
instruments were required which would accentuate the
differences in instruction, rather than students. For
this type of testing, a standard had to be used.
"Criterion-referenced" test instruments were designed,
and the test criterion was the predetermined objective.
When an objective becomes an evaluation criterion rather
than a mere direction pointer, then prescription and
explicit description appear much more necessary, particu-
larly if it is combined with "pre—designed" instructional

conditions.

Conclusions

It thus appears that the original question, "Is
there a real need for objectives in education to be pre—
scribed and explicitly described?" does not have a simple
yes or no answer. To this writer, the answer appears to
depend much more on the philosophical bias of the indi-
vidual, and the context in which the question is asked.
In the first case of philosophical bias, the problem
seems to be to make the bias, explicit, and then further
argumentation appears futile. In the second case, most
of the argumentation appears to be simply debates out of

context.

A2

To anticipate the next question concerned with the
need of the educational technologist however, some evi—
dence appears to bring forth a more affirmative response.
The educational technologist is in general oriented to
the scientific philosophy, and often has a philOSOphical
bias toward the point of view of the empiricists. Much
of the work of the instructional technologist deals with
"pre-designed" instruction and instructional materials
where testing is based on objective oriented, "criterion—
referenced" measuring instruments. Thus much of the work
of the educational technologist appears to require pre-

scribed and explicitly described educational objectives.

Question No. 2

 

If so, what is the position of the educational
technologist with regard to prescribed and explicitly
stated objectives?

In order to approach the question concerning the
position of the educational technologist, some indication
of the role of the technologist in education will first be
introduced. This will indicate a dual role which can be
subsumed under the general heading of educational tech-
nologist. The specific concerns and needs of these two
basic roles, which will be termed, curriculum technologist
and instructional technologist, can then be separately

analyzed in order to help answer the original question.

A3

"What is the position of the educational technologist with
regard to prescribed and explicitly stated objectives?"
Wiesner distinguishes between science and tech—
nology when he says, "To equate technology and science is
wrong. Science is the quest for more or less abstract
knowledge, whereas technology is the application of
organized knowledge to help solve problems in our

"29

society. Edling goes a step further and shows paral-

lels between technologists in transportation, communica-

30 He indicates that

tion, entertainment and education.
the goal of the technologist in education ". . . is to
identify the optimal means for forming behavior; thus he

is concerned both with ascertaining behaviors his society
needs and wants developed, and the means to deveIOp them."31
This indicates a dual role, first, that of ascertaining
whah behaviors the society needs and wants developed,
that is, the educational objectives; and second that of
the means to develop them or haw to attain them. This
distinction between the whah and the hpw problems in

education has recently been made also in the field of

curriculum.

 

29Jerome B. Weisner, "Technology and Innovation,"
Technological Innovation and Society, ed. by Dean Morse
and Aaron Warner (New York: Columbia University Press,
1966), p. 11.

 

3OJack V. Edling, "Introduction," The Contribution
of Behavioral Science to Instructional Technology
(Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research, 1968), p. 3.

 

31Ibid., p. A.

AA

32
Macdonald

has pointed out that curriculum
research and evaluation were confused and have not con-
tributed to advancement of curriculum because it is con—
founded with instruction. He points out that curriculum
evaluation is all too often conducted at the output point
of instruction rather than at the input position. This

confounds the what with the how. Johnson33

has agreed
with the need for the distinction and defined curriculum

as ". . . a structured series of intended learning out-

 

comes." This vieWpoint differentiates between curriculum

as a product consisting of intended learning outcomes,

 

that is the result of a process called curriculum develop-
ment; and the achievement of these learning outcomes or
objectives, by students in a learning setting, which is

designated as instruction. This narrowing of the concept

 

of curriculum to an equivalence with educational objec—

tives, heeds the warning of Boulding, ". . . all we can

say about practically everything is almost nothing."314

 

32James B. Macdonald, "Researching Curriculum Output:
The Use of a General Systems Theory to Identify ApprOpriate
Curriculum Outputs and Research Hypotheses" (paper pre-
sented at the AERA Meeting, February, 1965).

33Mauritz johnson, Jr., "Definitions and Models in
Curriculum Theory," Educational Theory, XVII (Spring,
1967), pp. l27-lAO.

 

34Kenneth E. Boulding, "General Systems Theory--The
Skeleton of Science," Modern Systems Research for the
Behavioral Scientist, ed. by Walter Buckley (Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1968), p. 3.

 

By reducing curriculum to what the writer considers educa-
tional objectives allows one to discuss curriculum in
meaningful terms. It also allows for a more in-depth
analysis of the two roles of the technologist in educa-
tion. The instructional technologist, who is concerned
primarily with the haw problem, the means of achieving
the objective, will be considered first. The curriculum
technologist, the technologist in education concerned
primarily with the whah_problem, with ascertaining what
learning outcomes the society needs and wants develOped,
will be discussed later.

The role in either case remains that of a tech—

"35 a sort of catalytic

nologist, that of a "pandemic man
agent in the decision—making process similar to that of
an operations research individual in business management

or a systems analyst in industry. In his role as a

technologist, one should be able to not only help the

 

35The word "pandemic" was coined by Professor W. H.

Cowley of Stanford University's department of education.

. . Professor Cowley asserts that three kinds of
individual are to be found in almost every society. The
first is the "logodemic." He is the scout on the fron-
tiers of knowledge concerned exclusively with discovering
new fragments of truth and adding them to the world's
stockpile of knowledge. The logodemic is at one end of
the spectrum. At the other end is the "practidemic"
type. He is the individual who puts to use the knowledge
discovered by the logodemic man. Between the logodemic
and the practidemic is the "pandemic" man. His job is
to mediate between the other two types. This mediation
is necessary because the logodemic man speaks an esoteric
jargon which only the other logodemics understand. . . .
Robert Lewis Shayon, "The Communications Gap in the Class-
room," Audiovisual Instruction VI (June, 1961), 2AA.

 

us

instructor evaluate the results of instruction by using
the objectives as criteria, but he should also be able
to help the policy makers evaluate the objectives them-

selves a priori to instruction.

Instructional Technologist

 

The instructional technologist is concerned with
instruction, with the haw problem of education. As such
he starts with an assumed given, the whah. As a "pandemic"
man he helps translate the research findings of the
psychological laboratory into Operational terms for the
practicioner in the classroom. Often this must be done
by analogy, since much of the research has taken place
in highly controlled laboratory environments, utilizing
rats instead of humans, and studying tasks quite different
from those in the classroom. The whah he receives as a
given, and the whah is used as a criteria for evaluating
his translation.

Katzell has pointed out that "the term 'criteria'
has traditionally applied to the dependent variable when
used for the validation of psychometric instruments."36
It is in this sense that educational objectives are
referred to as "criteria" for guiding instruction and

evaluating the results of instruction. When used this way,

 

36R. A. Katzell, "Industrial Psychology," Annual
Review of Psychology, ed. by P. R. Farnsworth (Palo Alto,
Calif.: Annual—ReVIews, Inc., 1957), p. 238.

 

A7

it is associated with the problem of constructing instru-

ments to predict achievement of the criteria. ’This is

a problem of validity. As Whitlock points out, "The

basic assumption is that a definite criterion exists, in

a form which can be measured or estimated with reasonable

reliability, against which to validate predictors . . ."37
The instructional technologist is concerned with

helping in the development of instruments to predict the

achievement of the criteria, that is, helping in the

development of instructional systems which will produce

the intended learning outcomes in its students. He is

concerned therefore with a prescribed objective, in a

form which will allow the results of the instruction to

be evaluated with reasonable reliability. Johnson has

said that, "It is in this evaluation context that Mager's

injunction to specify objectives operationally as terminal

behaviors at defined levels of performance under defined

conditions applies."38

It can be concluded therefore that
there is a definite need for prescribed and explicitly

described objectives for the instructional technologist.

 

37Gerald H. Whitlock, The Status of Morale Measure-
ment, 1959, WADD-TN-60-l36 (Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas: Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development
Division, May, 1960), p. 2.

38

 

Johnson, "Definitions and Models," p. 13A.

A8

Curriculum Technologist

 

The curriculum technologist in contrast with the
instructional technologist is concerned not with the
haw of education, but rather with the whah. He is con—
cerned with ascertaining whah the society and student
need and want as intended learning outcomes. He works
more with the policy—makers than with the instructors,
although these may in some cases simply be dual functions
in an individual person. As a technologist, he is con—
cerned with translating the research findings of perhaps
a dozen different disciplines into operational terms for
the educational policy maker at various policy levels.
Policy formulation models, concepts and techniques can be
borrowed and adapted from business, government, and the
social sciences dealing with policy—making and decision
processes. Methodologies, concepts and techniques for
evaluating results of the policy decisions have roots in
philosophy, sociology, history and economics. These a
technologist must translate for the educational practi-
cioner. The curriculum technologist must help determine
the whah_that serves as a criteria for the instructional
technologist.

Educational objectives serve as criteria to validate
instruction for the instructional technologist. 'If however,
educational objectives are conceived of as a dependent

variable to be found, as a criterion to be developed rather

A9

than as a predictor, then as Whitlock puts it, ". . . one
is no longer concerned with the problem of validity, but
rather becomes ccncerned with relevance, which is to a
criterion measure what validity is to a predictor."39
The use of the term validity with respect to a criterion

measure thus is inappropriate: the proper term is

relevance. The relevance of a criterion measure refers

 

to the amount of systematic variance common to the criterion
measure and the ultimate criterion.“O Since.measures of'
the ultimate criterion are almost never available, however,
the question of relevance is almost always one of judg-
ment.“1 The problem of the curriculum technologist is

thus to help the decision makers in their making of judg—
ments by making available translated results from policy
formation studies, curriculum research and curriculum

evaluation. These topics will be covered in greater

depth in the next question.

Conclusions

 

It was concluded that the answer to the first ques-
tion, "Is there a real need for objectives in education

to be prescribed and explicitly described?" warranted

 

39Whitlock, The Status of Morale Measurement, p. A.

”OR. L. Thorndike, Personnel Selection: Test and
Measurement Methods (New York: John Wiley and Sons, I9A9).

Al

 

 

Whitlock, The Status of Moral Measurement, p. A.

 

further investigation into the second question, "If so,
what is the position of the educational technologist with
regard to prescribed and explicitly stated objectives?"

In order to answer the second question properly
however, it was necessary to differentiate between the
needs and concerns of the two subsets of the educational
technologist: the instructional technologist, and the
curriculum technologist. Because the instructional
technologist is concerned primarily with the validation
of instruction through the use of educational objectives
as predictive criteria, he needs to have objectives pre-
scribed (given) and stated explicitly enough to be useful
as a criterion. The curriculum technologist on the other
hand, is concerned with first the process of prescribing
(ascertaining) the objectives, and then, how to state
them explicitly enough to facilitate further prescription.
This dual set of topics will take up the bulk of Chapter
II and Chapter 111. We thus come around to a recognition
that in the initial phases Of developing educational
objectives, or in making an evaluation of established
curriculum, the criteria of relevance is more pertinent
than validity. The failure on the part of discussants to
distinguish clearly between validity and relevance, between
instruction and curriculum, has probably contributed greatly
to the confusion surrounding the topic, and the lack of

progress in developing instruments appropriate to the

51

separate tasks of evaluating instruction, and evaluating
educational objectives a priori to instruction.

In summary, the curriculum technologist needs to
work toward prescribed and explicitly stated objectives,

while the instructional technologist must start with them.

Question No. 3

 

What is the role of the educational technologist in
helping to determine what objectives should be prescribed
and explicitly described?

In View of the previous distinction, this question
will be analyzed as if the question read, "What is the role
of the curriculum technologist in helping . . .?" This
question will be analyzed in three separate but related
topics: Policy formulation, curriculum research and cur-
riculum evaluation. The section on policy formulation
will start by giving a brief historical overview to the
problem, some important distinctions and the need for
technology in the formulation of policy. Next will be an
overview of some key concepts and techniques in the
technology of policy formulation. Finally, to complete the
section, there will be an overview of some models, tools
and techniques available to the technologist which might
be helpful in assisting the educational policy maker.

The second section will analyze curriculum research
as a context within which the educational technologist

might find a role. It will also point out the distinction

t)(:t,vuc:crrl C:L1I‘I‘I(311 ILlrn r'crizrzzirw:II :Lr1«I (tIJI‘r‘I(JII.I|IIH L‘Vfi Ini:lI.I (III.
The third section will discuss the role of the technolo-
gist in curriculum evaluation" This section will also
bring out some distinctions important to an educational
technologist. A summary will review the conclusions of

each section.

PolioygFormulation

 

Various labels have been applied to decisions and
actions taken over a course of time, depending in general
on the breadth of their implications. If they are trivial
and repetitive and demand little cogitation, they may be
called routine actions. If they are somewhat more complex,
have wider ramifications, and demand more thought, then
one may refer to them as tactical decisions. For those
which have the widest ramifications and the longest time
perspective, and which generally require the most informa-
tion and contemplation, the term strategy or policy is
reserved.

Of course, one man's policy may be another man's
tactics, depending upon the level of organization involved.
The superintendent of schools may pass along a directive
to the principals which then becomes policy for them,
that is, it forms the general framework of principles
within which the principals make their own "tactical"
decisions, which in turn become policy for their teachers.

Regardless of where applied, the term "policy" is reserved

for those parameter-shaping acts which are taken most
seriously, which are presumably most difficult to arrive
at, and at the same time most difficult and most impor-
tant to study. In education, whenever one asks the
question whah objectives, regardless of the level, he is
asking a policy question.

Historically, policy-making has been associated
with decision making. Simplistic models of decision
making supplied by psychologists, decision theorist,
economist, and other students of the phenomena ordinarily
imply a specific model of cognitive activity. The model
assumes a single decision—making unit with a single set
of utility preferences; knowledge of a reasonably full
range of action alternatives and Of their consequences;
the intention of selecting the course of action of maximum
utility; and, the opportunity, disposition and capacity
to make appropriate calculations!42 In the actual process
of policy formulation, every one of these assumptions is

violated.u3’1M

 

u2Raymond A. Bauer, "The Study of Policy Formation:
an Introduction," The Study of Policy Formation, ed. by
Raymond A. Bauer and Kenneth J. Gergen (New York: The
Free Press, 1968), p. 11.

u3Martin Patchen, "Decision Theory in the Study of
National Action: Problems and Proposal," Journal of Con-
flict Resolution, June, 1965).

uuSir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgment (New
York: Basic Books, 1965).

 

 

However, both the connotations of the term decision

 

making and the ordinary discussion of decision making on
policy issues preserves the illusion of these assumptions.
The difficulty created by this circumstance is dual. It
diverts attention of the student of the process from what
actually occurs and thereby hampers any efforts to under-
stand the process. Furthermore, it furnishes the policy
maker with an inappropriate model of how he ought to behave.
It does not help him, and it will confuse him if he takes

AS

the phrase seriously. For the curriculum technologist,
it is a warning to help the policy makers to a "better"
decision, not to search fkw'the "best" decision.
Historically the study of decision making and policy
formulation has fallen into two traditions. One, a norma-
tive type decision theory, which is concerned with how
people should act in order to achieve better results from
their decision making or policy formation procedures.
Most of the curriculum development models such as those
prOposed by Tyler“6 appear to be of this type. The other
tradition, so-called descriptive or behavioral decision
theory, is concerned with how peOple actually go about

handling such problems, whether the outcomes are admirable

or not. The curriculum technologist must recognize this

 

A5
A6

Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum.

Bauer, "The Study of Policy Formation," p. 11

 

55

distinction, and operate accordingly, for any proposals
the technologist may have for improving the way in which
policy should be foremd, must take into cognizance the

ways in which people and institutions actually function

 

under present circumstances. Minimally, normative pro—
posals must at least be compatible with what is possible
for peOple and institutions to do.

Moralizing and generalizing are not the same thing
as policy making. Policy making demands a sort of con—
crete thinking that declares that no value is absolute,
that in the real world one has to trade off units of one
value against units of another. Any notion of judging a
policy by its contribution to an overall system, poses the
possibility and usually the inevitability of an inequity
to some person or unit within the system. Policy making
also demands a frank acceptance of the limitations on one's
ability to act and a willingness to face up to the full
range of possible consequences of the actions taken,
including those which are against one's values and inten—
tions. In short, the curriculum technologist, if he
exposes himself to the intellectual and moral discipline
of policy formation, must strip himself of both the com—
placency of scientific neutrality and the illusion of
omniscience.

Despite the ways in which the basic assumptions of

the simplistic decision making models are violated in

56

real life policy making, there are some ways for the cur—
riculum technologist to assist in the process. Specifi-
cally, to the extent that an individual's information and
capacity to process information are finite, he can operate
as rationally as possible by formalizing the state of his

A7

imperfect information. It is therefore, a role of the
curriculum technologist to help the practical policy—
maker formalize the state of his imperfect information by
use of models, through the introduction of new concepts
and variables, and suggestions for analogies. The role
is similar to the role of operations research (O.R.) in
business and management. As Miller and Starr point out,
"It is in those problem areas where the executive knows
that his intuition is likely to fail him that O.R. holds
forth the greatest promise."148 So also with the curriculum
technologist, he must work where the policy maker's intui-
tion seems to be the weakest. But, the curriculum
technologist, like the O.R. man must heed the warning
that,

. . . intuition becomes more attractive as the

number of relevant variables and complex relations

between them increases. The efforts required to

build up models for increasingly complex cases

frequently goes up faster than the advantages
to be gained vis-a-vis intuition.A9

 

u7Bauer, "The Study of Policy Formation," p. 12.

u8David W. Miller and Martin K. Starr, The Structure
Of Human Decisions (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1967), p. IA7.

 

ugIbid.

Still, without trying to capture every nuance, the cur—
riculum technologist can serve as a broad guide, can
audit the process, and provide the policy maker with a
new source of perspective. Success of the curriculum
technolOgist, like success in O.R. will probably come,
". . . in determining the relevant variables and their
relationships in any one area (which) may be extendible
to others, with some suitable translation of terms."50
Success in this area often can be attributed to strong

analogies. This approach demands wide experience in dif—

ferent fields and the ability to think creatively about

 

them.

It is now necessary to examine key concepts and
techniques of policy formulation. This section will intro—
duce both the whh question and the hhw_question of policy
making. One of the central problems on which there has
not been agreement is the actual identification of the
key actors who influence the outcome of a particular
policy. The available evidence on the complications of
this problem are so much at variance with the ordinary
concepts that gergen51 devotes one entire essay to just
this question. The problem is not only so much the identi-

fication of actors as of "leverage points." By a "point

3

 

50Ibid., p. lAl.

51Kenneth J. Gergen, "Assessing the Leverage Points
in the Process of Policy Formation," The Study of Policy
Formation, ed. by Raymond A. Bauer and Kenneth J. Gergen
(New York: The Free Press, 1968).

58

of leverage" Gergen means a person, institution, issue,
or subsystem of the overall system that has the capacity
to effect a substantial influence on the output of the
system. In education, the teacher is often considered to
have substantial influence, and hence leverage, both in
methodology, and in policy making or determining objec—
tives.

One dimension of the haw question revolves around
the evolutionary sequence of development. Some students
of policy formulation consider the process as from the
top positions downward. They start with people in top
positions, consider gross abstractions such as the learner,
the society, or subject matter, as sources of data, and
make deductive inferences down to specific items, as the
policy process works down the levels of the hierarchial
structure. This method of curriculum development is
implied in the writings of such curriculum experts as

Tyler52 and Broudy, Smith and Burnett.53

such as Magersu and Popham55

Another group

see the development of policy

 

52

Tyler, Basic Principles Of Curriculum.

53H. S. Broudy, Othanel B. Smith, and Joe R.
Burnett, Democracy and Excellence in American Secondary
Education (New York: Rnad, McNally, 196A7.

 

5“Robert F. Mager, "Forum," NSPI Journal, VIII
(March, 1969).

55W. J. Popham, J. M. Atkin, and J. Raths, "The
Instructional Objectives Controversy," Symposium, Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(Chicago: February, 1968).

59

as a function of "grass roots" movements. Here the cur-
riculum development movements starts with specific objec-
tives springing out of the needs of the individual
students and the demands of the parents. These are later
abstracted into more generalized objectives at higher
levels of the policy making structure, post hoc.

Simon in discussing the top down, or analysis
approach to evolutionary sequence discusses the mechanism
Of hierarchial decision—making and divides it into three
principle steps: substantive planning,proceduralplan-
glhg, and daily execution decisions.56 He reCOgnizes
that there is a whole series rather than just three,
but they do provide a means of demonstrating that the
decisions at a given step or level of generality provides
the environment for the more specific decision at the
next level below. Activities at the highest level are
brought about by decisions that determine in very borad
terms the values, knowledge, and possibilities that will

receive consideration. Each lower level following will

give greater specificity to these very general determinants

through decisions which will determine in greater detail

a subarea lying within the area of the level above. One

Of the fundamental problems in any curriCUlum planning,

hence any study of the evaluation of educational objectives

 

56Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New
York; The Free Press, 19577, p. 96.

'v‘,
..

60

is to determine how this plexus of decisions should be
constructed, what network of criteria is required, what
the proper division of labor is between the broad
'planning" decisions and the narrower "executory"
decisions.

The stratification of decisions developed in an
analytic, deductive approach makes it possible to treat
each choice point with more rational considerations than
if it were made singularly "on the spot" because prior
decisions "narrow the field." As Simon puts it,

This narrow frame of attention is in distinct
contrast with the broader area Of reference that
is involved when the prior controlling decision
is made. That is, the set of factors taken into
consideration when it is determined that "a fire
department will be established with the objective
of minimizing fire losses" is quite different from
the set that influence a fire—fighter to decide,
"I had better connect a 2 1/2 inch line to this
hydrant." This stratification of decisions makes
it possible for each choice to be guided directly
or indirectly by much broader considerations of
rationality than would be possible if it had to
be made "on the spot" without benefit of previous
consideration.57

For many however, particularly those with leanings
toward empiricism as a fundamental belief system, there
is the demand that the structure of the curriculum develop—

ment process be founded on the solid rock foundation of

empirically determined, concrete specifics. It can then

work its way up through inductive generalizations, but

it must start with the observable. This is the group that

 

,bid., p. 98.

 

61

insist on defining educational objectives in specific
behavioral terms "a la Mager" regardless. They point
out the benefits.
One of the principle benefits may be simply the
visibility given objectives. As Mager puts it,
Though the procedure of writing objectives is

not enough, there are one or two advantages in

doing so, even though systematic derivation pro-

cedures are not followed. For one thing, it gives

practice to those who are developing the skill.

For another thing (and more importantly) it makes 5

Visible the trlv1a11t1es of an ex1sting curriculum.
For most beginners, the experience of specifying little
objectives, achieving them, and then discovering their
inadequacy, is a necessary precursor to recognizing the
need for, and developing the skill in defining larger and
more adequate objectives. Once acquired however, one can
go on to defining course goals in terms which one can use
to evaluate and determine when the objectives have been
achieved. Men like Postlewaite went through this process.
He believed in Mager, wrote his objectives in Magerian
form, then listened to his students and learned he hadn't
really asked for all he wanted out of them. So he revised
and tried again. Now he has whole course objectives written
in more general sc0pe, but still in objective Magerian form.

In addition to personal experience helping one to

synthesize subobjectives into broader, yet objective goals,

 

58Mager, "Forum," p. 22.

62

there are now available computer programs to help one
take large groups of concrete and specific objectives
listed, but unrelated, and group them into clusters and
hierarchies.59
Perhaps more critical and to the point of those
people who emphasize concrete description of educational
objectives rather than any deductive formulation is the
question of responsibility. Lysaught states the case
when he says,
It is really not the province of the educator to
specify the goals--that is reserved in our nation
to the general society through democratic processes.
But the point to be made is that society must
rely on educators to state these goals in behavioral
terms--so that they can be adopted, rejected or
modified by the public, then taught by the schools
in organized form.6O
If this is accepted as the correct position, then
the educational technologist is only concerned with criteria
for evaluating the description of educational objectives.
This tOpic will be taken up in the next chapter.
At this point in the controversy, it appears unwise
to lean to either side as the only way. Like most contro-
versies of this nature, it will probably end in compromise,

with further research determining the actual process, as

neither deduction nor induction, but rather both analysis

 

 

59Christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of
Form (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UnIversity Press, I96A7.
60

Jerome P. Lysaught, "Affective Learning and Self-
Instruction," NSPI Journal, VII (October, 1968), p. 5.

 

63

and synthesis, or "anasynthesis"61 as Silvern identifies
the "systems approach." In either case however, there
still appears to be a hierarchial structure of policy
decision making. For purposes of this paper, three arbi-
trary levels will be identified as W, X, and Y. The W
level designates the lowest level at which routine opera—
tions occur, at which specific Magerian style objectives
are usually operating. It is the level Simon has indi-
cated daily execution decisions take place. In curriculum
development, it is most likely called the "teacher" level.
The X level is concerned with the tactics, the procedural
planning, the curriculum committee. It is the intermediate
step between W and Y. The Y level is the strategic level,
the level of substantive planning. It is concerned with
broad general policy decision making. These levels intro—
duced here, will be developed further both in Chapter III
and Chapter IV.

Another dimension of the haw problem involves (1)
techniques for generating alternatives and (2) criteria
for selecting among alternatives. This problem occurs
both within any one level, and between levels. It occurs
in either direction of evolution. For example, in the
top-down deductive approach, the generation of alternatives

is often done through some type of analytic technique. The

 

61Leonard C. Silvern, Systems Engineeringof Educa-

tion I: The Evolution of Systems Thinking in Education
(Los Angeles: Education and Training Consultants 00.,

1965). p. l.

 

 

6A

inductive approach may generate alternatives by means of
a search and collection technique. Mager has suggested

a "launch button" technique in which he suggests playing
a game with parents. Parents are asked to imagine that
they must "launch" their own children into the world,
similar to launching a rocket to the moon. They are

then to specify the kinds of things they would like their
children to be able to know and do.62 This is a technique
for generating alternatives from the bottom up.

Selection criteria are another problem area that
applies to both approaches. Johnson has pointed out
that,

There are many possible criteria, some sensible,
others silly, depending upon one's ideology. Some
factions insist that curriculum items bear upon
persistent problems of living or current social
problems; others emphasize the significance of
items to the understanding of an organized field
of study; still others favor selection on the basis
of the experiences and interests of the potential
learners.63
The role of the curriculum technologist in this case may
simply be to formalize the judgment process by making the
implicit criteria used, explicit and available for further
investigation.

The questions of who and how are key concepts in any

policy decision making regardless of the level. It is only

 

62J. H. Harless, "Forum," NSPI Journal, VIII (April,
1969), p. 120

 

63Johnson, "Definitions and Models," p. 132.

65

through an understanding of the complexities and dis—
tinctions, that a technologist will be able to offer or
suggest the proper model, tool or technique, at the
appropriate juncture in the policy making process. We

have indicated here that there is a series of these junc—
tures, such as identifying the "leverage points" generating
alternatives, etc. If the curriculum technologist is to

be successful he must be able to identify just what is
being asked by the policy makers, what problem is being
referred to.

It will now be helpful to ask the question, "What
models, techniques and tools are available to the cur—
riculum technologist to help him "formalize" the judgment
process of the policy maker, by helping him generate
alternatives, make his criteria explicit, and monitoring
the process?" Traditionally, the sources of data for
generating alternatives in curriculum develOpment has
been, subject matter, society and the learner. The source
of selection criteria has been educational philosophy and
psychology.6U These are should sources. Modern analytic
policy formulation studies ask another question, "What
aha the sources?" As has been mentioned, the whh, or
"leverage points" are critical to this kind of analysis,

and

 

6“Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum.

 

66

In keeping with this orientation, there would seem
to be three major sources of data of major methodo-
logical interest. Initially one would want to be
able b0 specify those objective factors that
impinge on individuals possessing leverage. . . .
Second, . . . would be the psychological processes
operating within the individual himself . . .
Finally, one would certainly have an interest in

an objective description of the resultant conduct
of the individual."65

Specific techniques for assessing these sources will now
be discussed. Because however, some techniques or
models, are applicable to more than one source, or used.
for more than one purpose, no attempt will be made to

group them under specific areas of applicability.

a. Role/Task Analysis
This is the primary area referred to by Tyler in

his should approach to curriculum development. In discus—
sions he has referred to cultural analysis66 and suggested
break down of the culture into relationships of the
learner and his culture such as

. . . (1) health, (2) immediate social relation-

ships, including 1ife in the family and with

friends and acquaintances, (3) socio-civic rela-

tionships, including the civic life of the school

and the community, (A) the consumer aspects of 67
life, (5) occupational life, and (6) recreational.

 

65

66Ralph W. Tyler, "Some Persistent Questions on the
Defining of Objectives," Defining Educational Objectives,
ed. by C. M. Lindvall (Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-
burgh Press, 196A).

67

Gergen, "Assessing the Leverage Points," p. 207.

Tyler, Basic Principles, pp. 6-7.

67

These are also aspects covered in an "is" analysis of
sources of data to the "leverage points." The specific
relationship Tyler has listed as "occupational" has itself
been quite thoroughly exploited as a source of data under
the general term, "Job Analysis" and references for this
technique of generating alternatives and selecting there-
from abound.68 Specific techniques for other areas are
not so plentiful, but certainly available. Flanagan's

69

Critical Incident Technique is an example of a technique

 

useful for analyzing other types of relationships an

individual might become involved in.70’ 71

One difficulty
in this area, which has been designated Z in the model of
curriculum development prOposed by this writer (see page
137) is its breadth of scope and its extension over time.
The goals of education and training might be viewed as
superimposed on a continuum of knowledge and skills, in

which one pole consists of behaviors common to all of the

members of the society and the other pole made up of the

 

68Harry L. Ammerman, and William H. Melching, The

Derivation Analysis and Classification of InstructioHEI
Objectives. Technical Report 66-A (Alexandria, Va.:
Human Resources Research Office, The George Washington
University, May, 1966).

 

 

69John C. Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Technique,"
Psychological Bulletin, LI (July, 195A).

7OVincent N. Campbell and Daryl G. Nichols, "Citizen
Objectives," Report No. AIR-E62—lO/65-EP2 (Palo Alto,
Calif.: American Institute for Research, 1965).

71Josephine K. Craytor, "Critical Incident Technique,
PrOgramed Instruction and Nursing Education," NSPI Journal,
VII (July, 1968), pp. 12-15.

68

most individualized and specific tasks. As Tyler has put
it,
It is possible then to identify some needs that
are common to most American children, other needs
that are common to almost all of the children in
the given school, and still other needs that are
common to the majority of the children in the
school.72
Eriksson has developed a figure to illustrate this con-
tinuum73 (see Figure l). The dividing line between role

and task is often quite difficult to draw, and at present

it is not of particular importance at the moment.

Universality of Behavior

 

Towards maximum Towards minimum
Universality Universality
4 4—}
Role Task
Figure l

The discussion thus far has proceeded on the assump-
tion that the complete impact of any decision would be
felt immediately. But it is well known that there is a
time delay factor in education. Decisions with long-term

implications are especially important in education and

 

72

73Bo Eriksson, "A Systems Approach to Educational
Technology," Educational Technology, June, 1969, p. 66.

Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum, p. 7.

69

therefore require techniques for determining the conse—
quences of decisions in the future role/task environment.
A whole technology of forecasting is now presently avail-
able to the curriculum technologist to help him assist

the educational policy maker.7u’ 75

b. Participant Observation

One outstanding method of obtaining information for
policy formulation is participant observation. An excel-
lent example of this technique in operation is provided

by Silvern.76

In doing a systems analysis for a school
which was attempting to update itself, particularly in
vocational training, Silvern found that (1) teachers were
the principle determinants of objectives, i.e., teachers
had high "leverage," and (2) most academic teachers such
as Math teachers, English teachers, etc. had had no
experience in the real world of business, industry and

77

government. He utilized the participant observation

technique, by placing the academic teachers into conditions

 

A
7 James R. Bright, Technological Forecasting for

Industry and Government: Methods of Application (Engle—
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1968).

75Perry E. Rosove, The Use of Contextual Mapping to
Support Long-Range Educational Policy Making, SP-3D26
(Santa Monica, Calif.: Systems Development Corp., 1A
December,'l967).

76Leonard C. Silvern "SCRIBE...A Project ot Change
the Teaching Behavior of Academic Instructors in a High
School District," (Los Angeles: Education and Training
Consultants 00., 1967).

 

 

77lbid., p. l.

70

identical to those of their graduating students for the
summer period. This produced a series of curriculum
changes which were based upon the actual life situation
outside of the school. Participation by the policy maker
in the conditions effecting and effected by his policy
decisions provides direct and immediate feedback, and

had a major effect on further policy decisions.

c. Mediated Communications

Two particular techniques will be examined under
the term, mediated communications. The first, is a
systematic procedure for arriving at a reasoned consensus
which does not require face-to-face confrontation, but
which is done in real time. The second, is a statistical
procedure run on a computer to tease out the implicit
criteria used in policy decisions.

Curriculum researchers have often been hamstrung by
intangibles which have often been sensed, but not well

78 which deals with values

defined. The Delphi technique
in terms of consensual validity, does not solve all of
the philosophical questions which arise, but it does have
the merit of rendering the ham and the strings visible.

The technique is a means of concurrently reducing the

ambiguity in the definition of a specified item and

 

78Olaf Helmer, Social Technology (New York: Basic
Books, 1966).

 

71

converging the personal judgments of specified individuals
concerning the item.

Expert opinion must be called on whenever it becomes
necessary to choose among several alternative courses of
action in the absence of an accepted body of theoretical
knowledge that would clearly single out one course as the
preferred alternative. In education, theoretical knowl-
edge is meager, but expertise abounds. The problem of the
curriculum technologist is to substitute the systematic
use of systematically elicited expert judgment, for the
haphazard consultation of specialists. Helmer, in his

book79

points out three classes of methods for putting

the available expertise potential to the best practical
use: methods for selecting experts, methods for aiding
the performance of an expert, and methods for using groups
of experts.80 The Delphi technique belongs in the third
class of these methods. Instead of having a panel of
experts assemble in one place and be required to arrive

at a joint answer representing their consensus in response
to the questions addressed to them, the Delphi technique
substitutes a computed consensus for an agreed-on-majority
position. Minority opinions are also expressed, and a

second round of questions to clarify opinion is started.

Thus each knows what the majority consensus is, but is

 

79

80Ibid., p. 13.

Ibid.

 

72

able to express the reasons for disagreement and review
the others reasons before answering the question a second
time. With this technique, convergence of opinion tends
to identify specific clarified positions which have ESE?

sensual validipy.

 

Application of this technique in determining
objectives among a large number of subject matter experts
for example seems to mark it as a useful weapon in the
arsenal of the curriculum technologist.

Because the formulation of objectives is so
intimately involved with value judgments, and because
value judgments are so entangled with implicit criteria
and subjective evaluation procedures, the educational
technologist with empiricistic tendencies, has often been
frustrated in any attempt at evaluating the resultant
objectives. Recently, a computer program has been developed
which appears to hold promise in the empirical inquiries
of selecting values by determining the implicit criteria
actually used by the evaluators when they made their value
judgments. The program is termed a "policy capturing
81

model" and has been described best by Cristal.

In Selectipg a Harem, Christal describes how a mathe-

 

matical equation, derived from the fixed—X multiple linear

81Raymond E. Christal, Selecting a Harem and Other
flpplications of the Policy-Capturing‘MOHCI, PRL-TR-67-l
(Lackland AFB, Texas: Personnel—ReseaFEh Laboratory,
Aerospace Medical Division, March, 1967).

 

73

(

8
regression model 2 can be used to define and implement
the policy of an individual or rating board. He does this
with the aid of a short fable about an Oriental King, who
decided he would select a harem larger than King Solomon's.
As thousands of young girls arrived, the selection process
began.
"Excellent!" he would say. "This one is very
pleasing to my eye." Or perhaps he would hum
and haw with indecision. Many times he would show
his disapproval in no uncertain terms. "Never!"
he would say. "Pass on! Pass on!"83
After the supper the King has considered some 300
girls, but his eyes and his imagination were beginning to
tire. So he set up the problem.
"Most High First Counselor," he said, "You've
been watching me all day, and by now you should
know my likes and my dislikes. I've decided to
leave the selection of my harem in your hands.
But take Care! If your choices do not please me,
it will be your head!"8A
The rest of the fable tells how the problem was
solved by use of the linear regression model. Their suc-
cess was attested to in the fable by the fact that the

M

King was so pleased, . . . he gave the Most High First

 

82R. A. Bottenberg, and J. H. Ward, Jr., Applied

Multiple Linear Regression, PRL-TDR—63—6, AD-Al3 128,

 

(Lackland AFB, Texas: Personnel Research Laboratory,
Aerospace Medical Division, March, 1963).
83

Christal, Selecting a Harem, p. l.

 

8“Ibid.

7A

Counselor and the Chief of the Royal ’sychometricians
their choice of the leftovers."85
The tale describes capturing the policy of a single
judge, but it was pointed out that if there is high inter-
rater agreement among members of a policy board, then the
mean values could be used as the criterion vector to
represent the entire board. If the interrater agreement
were low, it may be that the raters could be divided into
two or more groups within which there is high agreement.
This can be accomplished by a hierarchial grouping tech-
nique which clusters judges. Thus if more than one
policy exists among board members, each such policy can
then be pinpointed for arbitration. The application to
school board policy or capturing the educational objec-
tives policy of a large segment of the population thus
seems feasible. The applications thus far have been
limited to the military setting, but the potentialities
seem quite broad and worth further investigation. As
Christal concludes,
Applications of the policy—capturing model

described in this paper have been drawn primarily

from the military setting. However, one can easily

see how the model might be applied to study such

diverse properties as the quality of beefstock,

the beauty of pictures, the effectiveness of

workers, the quality of English compositions, or 86
the acceptability of applicants for a king's harem.

 

85

86Ibid., p. 9.

Ibid., p. u

75

In summary, the role of curriculum technologist in
policy formulation appears to be that of helping to for-
malize the policy making process. This is possible through
the use of a variety of models, tools, techniques and
research findings from a variety of sources, plugged into
appropriate junctures of the process. Some of the junc—
tures of problem points were identified, such as "leverage
points," evolutionary development sequence, W, X, and Y
levels of policy formation, and a 2 level of real life
role/task relationships. The problem points of generat-
ing alternatives and determining selection criteria were
also identified. Finally, a set of presently existing
models, tools and techniques were identified and their
possible uses by a curriculum technologist implied.

It is now necessary to identify possible roles of
the curriculum technologist in curriculum research and
curriculum evaluation. The section on curriculum research
will begin with identifying the distinction between
research and evaluation. This should help clarify the

role of the technologist in both contexts.

Curriculum Research

 

ll

Jastrow has pointed out that . . . the human mind

is a belief-seeking rather than a fact-seeking apparatus."87

 

87J. Jastrow, "The Animus of Psychical Research,"
The Case For and Against Psychial Belief, ed. by Carl
Murchison (Worchester, Mass.: Clark University Press,
1927). p. 28A.

76

He indicates that a belief is any simple proposition held
by a person, capable of being preceded by the phrase, "I
believe that . . ." He categorizes three types of belief,

The first kind of belief may be called a
descriptive or existential belief (I believe that
the sun rises in the east7; the second kind of
belief may be called evaluative belief (I believe
this ice cream is good7; the third kind may be
called a prescriptive or exhortatory belief (I 88
believe that children should obey their parents).

 

 

 

 

 

In searching for roles for educational technologists,
these three types of beliefs should be kept in mind. The
first type of belief is clearly one which scientists and
researchers have been primarily concerned with. Utilizing
empirical evidence as the ultimate criterion, scientists
have altered a descriptive or existential belief into
gaah, or as Werkmeister calls it, "warranted belief."89
This is done through what could be labeled "is" or factual
evaluation. Science has formalized the procedure and
titled the whole methodology, research.

For the second type of belief, most people evidently
feel that neither a model nor a theory is needed to help

us choose among differently flavored ice-cream cones, and

no formalized methodology has appeared on the horizon.

 

88Ibid., p. 285.

89W. H. Werkmeister, The Basis and Structure of
Knowledge (New York: Harper and Row, 19A8), p. 3.

 

 

77

The third type of belief, the prescriptive or

 

exhortatory belief refers to a basic value system. This
value system acts as a decision model utilizing the cri-
teria of accepted authority statements, known facts and/'
or personal insight developed out of individual backgrounds
and experiences. For example, many believe that children
should obey their parents, and they proceed to act on

this basis. Everyone has a basic value system of "oughts"
and they act accordingly. The curriculum technologist is
particularly interested in this type of belief when search-
ing for criteria with which to evaluate educational objec-
tives, because as has been indicated, and will be expanded
in a later analysis, it is upon this kind of belief that
curriculum, i.e., educational objectives, is founded.

The distinction between existential and prescriptive

 

 

beliefs introduces and lays the foundation for the dis-
tinction seldom made, and only recently gaining prominence

between research studies and evaluation studies. ReCOg—

 

nition of this distinction is necessary particularly for
the ecucational technologist who has been trained in
research methodology, and suddenly finds himself in the
role of evaluating educational Objectives. In this paper

the distinction will only be pointed out and critical

78

. . . . 90 91 92
issues ldentlfled. OtherS' ’ ’ ’

have analyzed the
distinction in greater depth. One critical point of dif-
ference between a research study and an evaluation study
is manifest primarily in the purpose and utilization of
the findings. A research study is concerned with the
discovery of new knowledge. An evaluation study on the
other hand is concerned with providing criteria and/or
evidence for a policy decision. A policy maker can aah
upon the results of an evaluation study; however, new
knowledge form a research study may or may not have direct
influence on the policy decision. Another distinction,
pointed out by Hemphill, is concerned with what has been

labeled value judgments. "The crux of the issue, however,

is not who makes a decision about what alternatives or what

 

information serves as the basis for a decision; rather,

 

it is the degree to which_concern.with value questions is

 

part and parcel of the study."93 "Ought" or value

 

90John K. Hemphill, "The Relationship Between Research
and Evaluation Studies," Educational Evaluation: New Roles,
New Means (The Sixtyaiighth Yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education, Part 11, Chicago: The Univer—
sity of Chicago Press, 1969).

91Robert E. Stake and Terry Denny, "Needed Concepts
and Techniques for Utilizing More Fully the Potential of
Evaluation," Educational Evaluation: New Roles, New Means
(The Sixty-Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part II, Cnicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1969).

92Egon Guba, "Significant Differences," Educational
Researcher, XX (1969).

93

 

 

 

 

 

Hemphill, "Research and Evaluation Studies," p. 190.

79

questions, tend to be associated with evaluation studies,
while "is"or factual questions tend to be associated with
research studies. Hemphill points out that policy decision
makers can and frequently do make use of information
developed through research. But this act does not there—
by transform a research study into an evaluation study.
The evaluation study is not a search for cause and effect,
an inventory of present status, or a prediction of future
success. It is not concerned with generalization, but
rather with specific answers. As Stake and Denny point
out,

The evaluator is concerned with finding immediate

relevant answers for decision-making. He has an

obligation to deal directly with personal standards

and subjective judgments. The focal point of his

work--unlike that of the researcher--is that one

curriculum or that one program, or that one lesson,

or that one textbook he is evaluating.9A
The educational technolOgist must be aware of these dis-
tinctions between curriculum research and curriculum
evaluation, if he is to be effective in his role in either
case. Guba warns of the dangers of ignoring the distinc-
tion, by saying,

Thus we see that evaluative inquiry does little
more for the researcher than‘a3give him an oppor-

tunity to disgrace himself while not really_serving
his puppose.95

 

 

 

9A
95

Stake and Denny, "Concepts and Techniques," p. 373.

Guba, "Significant Differences," p. 5.

80

With this distinction clearly in mind, the role
of the educational technolOgist in curriculum research
and curriculum evaluation might become easier to analyze.

The curriculum technolOgist, is interested primarily
in the utilization of research rather than in doing the
research. He is concerned with using new knowledge not
with producing it. He is therefore concerned with a broad
review of the literature which might fit under the title
curriculum research. This may not be as easy as it
appears. Although logically, and perhaps semantically,
one can distinguish between research and evaluation, it
is not very useful to base that distinction upon a review
of the literature. The distinction made on the basis of
the terms used in the titles and the operational defini-
tions assigned to the terms in the articles is nearly
impossible. It may well be that the primary role of the
curriculum technologist in reviewing the literature, is
to make that distinction both for himself and for the
researcher, evaluator and policy maker.

Further, the distinction between instructional
research and curriculum research is just as confused, with

96

some exceptions. Gideonse made an analytical study of

research to be used at policy-making levels by commissions,

 

96Hendrix D. Gideonse, "The Relative Impact of
Instructional Variables: The Policy Implications of
Research," Teachers College Record, LIX (1968).

81

state legislatures or the U.S. Congress. His study was
important in that he differentiated the kind of research
needed for curriculum decision making by controlling
agencies (e.g. school board members) as opposed to
research necessary for decisions made by those Operating
at the instructional level (e.g. teachers). This type
of differentiation is one of the roles of the curriculum
technologist when he deals with curriculum research. He
must differentiate and identify research as opposed to
evaluation, curriculum research as Opposed to instruc—
tional research. He must search for research which will
help illuminate some of the basic problems facing curricu-
lum research, i.e. who aha the policy makers, where aha
the leverage points, how aha alternatives generated, what
criteria aha used for selection, etc. The curriculum

technologist is concerned with what does exist in the

 

literature concerning these problems, not what should

exist.

Curriculum Evaluation

97 devised and

In 19A2, Smith, Tyler and his staff
implemented a philosophy of curriculum evaluation that
formed the basis of almost all subsequent evaluation

thought. Critical to this approach was the broad

 

97E. R. Smith, R. w. Tyler and the Evaluation Staff,
Appraising and Recording Student Progress (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 19A27.

definition of curriculum implied. The evaluation of the
objectives themselves was not considered to be a concern
of the external evaluator. As Dressel has said, ". . .

no one measures or evaluates the instructional objectives
but rather, attempts to measure the progress of the
individual with regard to instructional Objectives but
rather, attempts to measure the progress of the individual

"98

with regard to instructional objectives. Even up to

recent times with modern technological methodology such
as programed instruction, curriculum evaluation has been
confused and compounded with instructional evaluation.
Lewis and Pask have reminded us that,

. . . while it is entirely prOper to justify pro-
gramed instruction in terms of the terminal
behavior produced, the terminal behavior must
itself be justified . . . at the present time,
terminal behaviors are justified on an intuitive
basis. This may well be satisfactory in many
cases, but it is a pity to have to rely upon
intuition.99

 

To compound the damage, the contribution of instructional
evaluation to curriculum development has been restricted
by a model which has extended very little beyond concep-

tions of testing. Tests have been designed to measure

 

98P. L. Dressel, "Measurement and Evaluation of
Instructional Objectives," Seventeenth Yearbook of the
National Council on Measurements Used in Education (New
York: N.C.M.C., 1960), p. 1.

99Brian N. Lewis, and Gordon Pask, "The Theory and
Practice of Adaptive Teaching Systems," Teaching Machines
and Programed Learning, 11 Data and Directions, ed. by
Robert Glaser (Washington, D.C.: DAVI NEA, 1965), p. 239.

 

 

83

the attainment of certain curricular goals and the
results obtained from them have obtained from them have
then been used to make evaluative statements regarding
student's learning, teacher's teaching and the goals them-
selves. This simplistic model assumes that the efforts
of teachers and students are the prime causal factors in
the attainment of educational objectives. Researchers
know however, that there are other causal factors. One
of the many interesting findings in a report from England
for example is the discovery that parental attitudes have
greater correlation with pupil achievement than material
home circumstances or variations in school and classroom
organization, instructional materials and particular
teaching practices.100

The conclusion drawn from all this, is that if educa-
tional objectives are to be used as a criterion for
evaluating instruction, if educational objectives are to
be evaluated without the masking effects of the instruc-
tion process, then curriculum evaluation must be indepen-
dent of and done prior to the instruction.

In order to understand his role in curriculum
evaluation, then, the curriculum technologist must be

familiar with several distinctions, some already covered,

others to be later identified.

 

 

100Bridget Plowden, Children and Their Primary
fiflghools: A Report of the Central Advisogy Council for
EIducation (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967).

CD
~
+.

The curriculum technologist must be aware of, and
be able to distinguish between, Research and Evaluation,
as separate methodologies, Curriculum and Instruction as
subject areas for evaluation, Formative and Summative
styles of evaluation, and finally qualitative and quanti-
tative techniques of evaluation. The first two distinc-
tions have been discussed, the later two will now be
identified. The reasons the curriculum technologist
must know these distinctions is for their transfer value.
The technologist works largely in the area of analogies,
of suggesting models from other disciplines, of adapting
similar techniques from other Circumstances. The
technologist is primarily a borrower, not an inventor.
The distinctions are required to aid in the search for
more systematic procedures for formalizing the process of

curriculum evaluation.

a. Summative vs. Formative Evaluation

The evaluation of the curriculum as a policy or what
to teach problem in education, can be doen in two primary
ways. One approach involves the comparison of some already
established set of educational objectives with some pre-
determined set of criteria. This is known generally as

a summative evaluation.101 The alternate approach is to

 

 

101Michael Scriven, "Methodology of Evaluation,"
American Educational Research Association Monograph
Series on Curriculum Evaluation (Chicago: Rand McNally,

1967).

 

 

85

evaluate the process through which the objectives them—

selves are determined. This is generally known as a

formative evaluation.102

 

Formative evaluation techniques are used when one
is interested in revising the curriculum while it is
still in development. This means that evaluation
activities must take place at predetermined stages in the
develOpment of the curriculum. For example, the Delphi
technique might be employed to establish expert consensus
at a fairly high level of policy develOpment. Feedback
from real life situations as illustrated with the partici-
pant observation techniques might be utilized. Strategies
must also be included in the curriculum development
activities which permit changes to be made on the basis
of reliable and valid criterion referenced evidence.
This permits adjustments to be made in the curriculum on
the basis of deficiencies identified enroute. It implies
a closed loop feedback organization in curriculum develop—
ment. It also suggests a trial—revision cycle based on
predetermined standards of enroute benchmarks. These
benchmarks, or criteria are not readily available. These
criteria, or perhaps a criterion network would be one
area Open to extensive curriculum research.

Summative evaluation techniques on the other hand,

produce some kind of terminal or overall estimate.

 

logIbid.

86

Ordinarily, the purpose is to arrive at a general con—
clusion about an already established curriculum.
Basically, this turns out to be some type of value
judgment. The policy capturing model of Christal, may
be used as a technique for teasing out the implicit
criteria used by the summative evaluation team, and pro—
vide a future base for benchmarks of a formative evalua-
tion. The distinction between the two styles of evaluation
is not that one is concerned with normative data and the
other with criterion referenced data; indeed, both may
employ an absolute standard. The distinction is more in
the use and purpose of the data collected. Indeed, it
seems that the curriculum technologist must provide better
techniques for collecting, analyzing and interpreting data
to administrators, lay public, and subject matter experts
before formative evaluation of curriculum development
becomes more than a terminological distinction.
b. Qualitative vs. Quantitative
Evaluation

Earlier in this paper, the technologist in education
was compared to the operations researcher in business and
management. For those knowing a particular brand of O.R.
or having a particular pre-set concerning technology, this
can cause a restricted role of the curriculum technologist
to evolve. Morse and Kimball define Operations research

as ". . . a scientific method of providing executive

87

departments with a quantitative basis for decisions

regarding the operations under their control."103 To

restrict the curriculum technolOgist, who deals largely
with intangible value judgments, to quantitative evalua-
tion or measurement, appears to be both unnecessarily
narrow, and in fact ludicrous. This point is best illus—
trated by a story about the man with two horses.

A man who was not a moron had two horses and
could not tell them apart. He cut the tail off
the one horse, but it grew back. Then he cut the
mane off the other horse, but in time that grew
back too. So he phoned his uncle to ask for a
suggestion.

"Why don't you measure the two horses," advised
the uncle.

So he did. And that's how he found out that the
white horse was two inches taller than the black
horse.10A

The fact that evaluation is more than measurement
is sometimes lost in the persuasive power of the term

measurement. Part of the problem seems to be a certain

 

ambiguity in its meaning. Lorge has reported that in a
sample of two and one-half million words, the term

"measure" occurred more than A00 times and was used in
105

A0 different ways. Part of the ambiguity may of course

come from the fact that the term "measurement" is

 

103Philip M. Morse, and George E. Kimball, Methods
of Operations Research (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1951), p.1.

10A
Anonymous

1051. Lorge, "The Fundamental Nature of Measurement,"
Educational Measurement, ed. by E. F. Lindquist (Washington
D.C.: American Council on Education, 1950), p. 533.

 

 

88

”overworked" because of its rhetorical quality by virtue
of its association with some of the more "prestigious"
sciences such as physics, and the equating of measurement
with mathematics. Despite the bruising usage, certain
aspects of its definition remain intact. According to
Stevens106 measurement in its broadest sense is the
assignment of numerals to objects or events according to
rules. Thus measurement deals with quantitative evalua-
tion. Qualitative evaluation on the other hand, deals
with categorization and identification, a first step in
measurement, as will be pointed out later.

The prime spokesman for the glorification of
quantification was Kelvin, who reflected the attitude of
his day when he declared,

I often say that when you can measure what you

are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you
know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers,
your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but

you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to

the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.107

Fechner was the one who originally extended to psychology,

Kelvin's famous dictum that in science you cannot talk

 

1068. S. Stevens, "Mathematics, Measurement and
Psychophysics," Handbook of Experimental Psychology, ed.
by S. 8. Stevens (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1951).

107Lord (W. Thomson) Kelvin, quoted in Fogel, J.
Lawrence, Alvin J. Owens, Michael J. Walsh, Artificial
Intelligence Through Simulated Environments (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), p. l.

 

 

f
())(

about a thing until you can measure it.108 And the

modern day version is given by Lumsdaine who has con-
tinued the tradition by giving the following definition
of instruction.

Instruction is used as a generic term referring
to any specifiable means of controlling or mani-
pulating a series of events to produce modifications
or behavior through learning. It is applicable
whenever the outcomes of learning can be specified
in sufficiently explicit terms to permit their
measurement.109

 

Does Lumsdaine really mean measurement with its
attendant quantification requirement, or does he simply
mean "reliable identification." It is the position of
this writer, that reliable evaluation, both qualitative
and quantitative are required for both instruction and
curriculum. Qualitative differences do not always have
to be converted into quantitative differences which
permit measurement. Churchman and Ackoff remind us that
for some purposes it is inefficient to convert a quality
into a quantitative form even if it can be done.

The history of science to date has shown that

the use of quantification permits a more rapid
reduction of experimental error, and consequently
where greater precision is desired, attempts are

made to convert qualitative mrophologies into
quantitative morphologies. . . . But for many

 

108James R. Newman, "Commentary on the Founder
Of Psychophysics," The World of Mathematics, Vol. II
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956), p. llA7.

 

109A. A. Lumsdaine, "Instruments and Media of
Instruction," Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. by
N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963),
p. 58A.

90

purposes it is inefficient to convert the

qualitative into the quantitative, even though

it can be done. It is only where distinctions

between qualities become open to uncontrolled

error that quantification is needed.110
The story of the man with the black horse and the white
horse is a case in point. Moreover, Leontief indicates
that as we attempt to quantify grosser and grosser
qualities we lose the value of the quantification itself.
For example, when one quantifies a general concept

I

like "appliances' instead of a broader term like "con—

l

sumer durables,‘ one excludes automobiles, but still

leaves unspecified whether one has in mind refrigerators,
washing machines, or TV set.111 In quantifying the number
of TV sets one still loses information as to whether they
are color or black and white, or how many of each. As

one speeds up the car and increases his miles per hour,

he correspondingly reduces his miles per gallon. So

also when one increases the SCOpe or abstraction of the
quality he attempts to quantify, so also does he reduce
the quantitative information returned. What this means to

a Curriculum Technologist working in the very abstract

field of education, is that a search for more variables,

 

1100. W. Churchman and R. L. Ackoff, "Purposive
Behavior and Cybernetics." Modern Systems Research for
the Behavioral Scientist, ed. by Walter Buckley (Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1968), p. 2A6.

lllWassily Leontief, "The Problem of Quality and
Quantity in Economics," Quantity and Quality, ed. by
Daniel Lerner (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe,
Inc., 1961), p. 127.

 

 

 

91

for a greater number of qualitative distinctions and
the identification of those distinctions may be more
profitable than premature quantification of gross
generalities.

Quantitative evaluation is a subset of qualitative
evaluation. Lorge has pointed out that there are at
least two requirements or criteria inherent in any
measurement:

1. some concept of that which is to be
measured exists and

2. some notion of the measurablewproperties of
the concept exist.ll2

 

Stated another way, that which is to be measured must be
observed, and that which is to be observed is dependent
upon man's ability to conceive of it, and then, on his
ability to observe it in quantified units. A qualitative
evaluation is dependent upon only the first step, the
ability to conceptualize what is to be observed. Piaget
has made the point that the primary aspect of qualitative
evaluation is simply concept learning. Once a concept has
been learned, what was non-existent before becomes self-
evident.

Once a concept is constructed, it is immediately

externalized so that it appears to the subject

as a perceptually given property of the object

and independent of the subject's own mental
activity.ll2

112Lorge, "Nature of Measurement," p. 536.

113Jean Piaget, Six Psychological Studies (New
York: Random House, 1967), p. xii.

 

92

The curriculum technologist must recognize the
distinction between reliable qualitative evaluation based
on wide experience, i.e. experienced professional judg—
ments, and reliable measurement based on quantified con—
cepts. Recognizing the distinction, will help in utilizing
both in their proper fashion. The man of experience, the
experienced doctor diagnosing a patient, the experienced
teacher motivating a youngster often make qualitative
evaluations on the "obvious" while the novice or beginner
who has not yet conceptualized all of the dimensions of
the complex situation refers to "intangibles" and asks for
measurement and measuring devices to make his evaluations.

Some of the intangibles that one generation
treats by experience are converted to measurable
factors by the next generation. This process is
a never-ending one because reality is far too

complex to be completely circumscribed by a
finite set of measurements.llA.

Conclusions

 

The third question asked, "What is the role of the
educational technolOgist in helping to determine whah
objectives should be prescribed and explicitly described?"
This question was then analyzed into three separate
sections, one concerned with the role of the educational
technologist in policy formulation, another with his role

Lin curriculum research and finally, the role in curriculum

‘

11A

 

Miller and Starr, The Structure of Human Decisions
p. 86.

93

research and finally, the role in curriculum evaluation.
Prior to this however, the concept of educational
technologist had been subdivided into curriculum tech-
nologist and instructional technologist. Since it was
determined that the instructional technologist dealt
primarily with the how problem, and the curriculum
technologist with the what problem of education, the
question answered was in effect, "What is the role of
the curriculum technologist . . ?"
The section on policy formulation reemphasized the
parallel between the curriculum technologist working with
educational policy makers, and the operations researcher
working with business management. The principle role of
the curriculum technologist apepars to be helping to
formalize the actual policy making process through the
use of various technological models, tools and techniques
presently available, although often requiring adaptation.
or translation by the technologist for use in the educa-
tional policy formulation. Some key concepts and critical
points in the structure of the policy formation process
were then identified, and some of the more promising
models, tools and techniques applicable to curriculum
development were catalogued. It was concluded that tech-
ncylogy is available to assist in policy formulation, and

true role of the curriculum technologist is to help include

9”

it in educational policy formulation such as the ascer—
taining and description of educational objectives.

In the section concerned with curriculum research
it was noted that there is a logical, if not a practiced
distinction between research and evaluation. The section
also reemphasized the role of the technologist as an
applier of knowledge of research rather than as a researcher
and producer of knowledge. The role of the curriculum
technologist was therefore considered to be more critical
in the area of curriculum evaluation.

The section on curriculum evaluation concluded that
in recognition of the distinction between curriculum and
instruction made previously, curriculum evaluation should
take place prior to instruction rather than after. In
view of this, curriculum evaluation becomes part of the
policy making process, or is done on the product of policy
formulation. This distinction between formative and sum—
mative evaluation was therefore considered important
for the curriculum technolOgist to know in his role both
in policy formulation and in curriculum evaluation.
Another distinction was identified between qualitative
and quantitative evaluation. This distinction appears
important to the curriculum technologist who must deal
with intuitive value judgment that cannot, and often
should not be quantified. It was in fact implied in the

distinction that rather than a premature search for

95

explicit criteria or quantification, a search for more
variables, for greater qualitative distinctions, might
be a more helpful first step in the more reliable

evaluation of curriculum.

CHAPTER III

DESCRIPTION OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

The analysis of the literature concerned with
description or specification of objectives will attempt
to find at least some tentative answers or conclusions
to the question, "What is the role of the educational
technologist in helping to determine how the objectives
prescribed should be explicitly described?” The analysis
will follow the dimensions expressed by Bloom, ". . . the
explicitness of the Specification, the forms in which
they are case, the sources from which they are derived,
and the extent to which they are used for various
decisions."

In the previous chapter, the sources from which the
objectives were derived was indicated. In this chapter,

the topic raised by Mager, the form of the objective, will

 

be considered first. Next, the question of how explicit
the objective should be, how specific or general, will be
analyzed. A hierarchy of the three levels of decision—

making, and its effect on description will then be

1Benjamin 8. Bloom, "Some Theoretical Issues Relating
to Educational Evaluation," Educational Evaluation: New
figles, New Means, The Sixty—Eighth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1969), p. 28.

96

 

97

examined. Finally, the organization or network of

 

objectives concept will be considered.

Form

 

Criteria for evaluating the form of the objectives
have been an explicit part of much of the literature con-
cerned with the specification or description of educa-
tional objectives. Mager for example states that, an
objective in order to be considered behavioral must have

conditions behavior and criteria.2 Paulson on the other

 

hand says the objective must contain, Audience, Behavior,

3

 

Conditions and Degree. Others have also provided cri-

 

teria for the form. Each is somewhat different, but all
contain one commonality, behavior. Tyler in 1950 claimed
that there were two aspects that were important to the
form of an objective: behavior and content. Many years
later, when behavioral objectives became a popular term,
Tyler again emphasized the two elements and criticized the
conference he was attending for ignoring the content aspect.

"To specify the kind of behavior to be developed is not

enough to guide the selection of learning experiences and

 

2Robert F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives,
(Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1962), p. 12.

3C. F. Paulson, "Specifying Behavioral Objectives,"
National Research Training Institute Manual (Monmouth,
Oregon: Teaching Research, 1967), pp. 11—19.

 

 

98

the appraisal of result. We must also specify the kinds
of content involved."

The final stages of any argument between what the
form should include can probably be done most conclusively
with quantitative empirical evidence. Before this is done
however, a greater qualitative analysis appears both
helpful and required if any quantitative evidence is to
have much meaning. We will look first at the term
behavior, examine it to determine its various descriptive
meanings in the literature, and then we will look at the

term content, to determine its various meanings.

Behavior

"Stamp out nonbehavioral objectives!"

Slogans have always been with us, and will continue
to play a role. It is critical however, to recognize
their role as having emphatic meanings, rather than
literal meanings. That is, they tend to "point out" or
"focus attention” on some aspect of a context, rather
than literally meaning what they say. In the case of this
slogan, there appear to be three general emphasis intended.

First, it is emphasizing the use of behavior rather than

 

content as the basic criteria of form. This is a reaction

 

“Ralph W. Tyler, "Some Persistent Questions on the
Defining of Objectives," Defining Educational Objectives,
Ed. by C. M. Lindvall (Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1964), p. 78.

99

of the type of objectives which were lists of subject
matter topics with no behavior at all. A second emphasis
was upon the use of student behavior rather than teacher
behavior in terms of describing an objective. The objec-
tive "The teacher will list three major causes of the
Civil War on the chalkboard" is literally a "behavioral”
objective. It is however, one to be "stamped out" as a
nonbehavioral objective according to the slogan. Finally,
there is an emphasis implied concerning the specificity
or generality of the behavior, whether the behavior
specified is eXplicitly stated, or implied by the term
etc. The general tOpic of specificity vs. generality in
description will be covered later, but for the moment, the
specificity of the term behavior itself will be analyzed
in greater depth.

Mager says, "Behavior-~refers to any visible activity

"5

displayed by a learner (student). This stipulative

definition corresponds in meaning to the interpretations
7

by Paulson,6 Gerlach, and Walbesser.8 In this sense, we

are referring to activities of the student which are

 

5

6Paulson, "Specifying Behavioral Objectives."

Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives, p. 2.

 

7Vernon S. Gerlach, Describing Educational Outcomes
(Inglewood, Calif.: Southwest Regional Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development, 1967).

 

8Henry H. Walbesser, Constructing Behavioral
Objectives (College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland,
1968).

 

 

lOO

readily observable to an outside observer. We will
designate this as Beh (l) for purpose of identification.

Tyler on the other hand has used the phrase,

"9

"ability to interpret data as a behavioral aspect of the

 

objective. This correSponds to the interpretation of
behavior as indicated in Bloom's taxonomylO or in
Guilford's Structure of Intellect taxonomyll both of whom

consider their categories behavioral. Their interpreta-

 

tion is in fact justified by Watson, one of the fathers
of the behaviorism movement who defines behavior somewhat
differently than Mager.

We can observe behavior — what the organism
does or says. And let us point out at once:
that saying is doing — that is behavin . Speaking
overtly or to ourselves (thinkingi is just as
objective a type of behavior as baseba11.12

 

 

In this sense, we are referring to activities which "could"
be observed with the prOper instrumentation which could

thus make it observable to our senses. That is, we are

 

9Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19567,
p. 32.

 

 

Benjamin S. Bloom, ed., Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals.
Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain (New York: David McKay
Company, Inc., 19567.

11J. P. Guildord, The Nature of Human Intelligence
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 19677}

12John B. Watson, Behaviorism (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1930), p. 6.

 

 

 

 

 

101

talking about a "postulated" or conceptualized behavior.
We will designate this interpretation as Beh (2) for
purposes of identification.

Schalock has indicated that it is important to
keep these two interpretations separate in order to
avoid an unnecessary set of constraints in our descrip-
tions.

This position, namely that one needs to keep
separate conceptually and operationally the descrip—
tion of the desired objective and the development
of the criterion measure that is to be used as
evidence of the realization of the objective,
differs considerably from the position taken by
Paulson and Mager. The rationale underlying the
present view is that by defining an objective in
terms of measures to be used in assessing its
realization one severely limits the scope of
thinking or imaginativeness that can be introduced
into the specification of learning outcomes. It
is also based on the assumption that at best a
measure reflects only selected or representative
parameters of the phenomena that is being measured,
and in this sense constitute no more and no less
than a set of indicators that one is willing to
accept as evidence of the phenomena in question.
Given this point of View the defining of behavioral
objectives in terms of the measures to be used in
assessing them is seen as an unnecessary set of
constraints under which to operate.l3

Ammerman and Melching support this view when they point
out that

Many writers of objectives have thought that the
measurability of an objective was of prime impor-
tance. Thus, to make an objective measurable, it
often had to be modified . . . However . . .
modifications based on feasibility and school

 

 

13H. D. Schalock, "Learner Outcomes, Learning Pro-
cesses, and the Conditions of Learning," The Contribution
of Behavioral Science to Instructional Technology (Monmouth,
Oregon: Teaching Research, 1968), p. II-37.

 

 

102

situations should be made only after develop—
ing and recording terminal student performance
objectives.lU

It now becomes clear that one must make a dis—

tinction in meaning, when the term behavior (as in a

behavioral objective) is meant to convey the criterion

 

behavior intended of the student; and when it is meant

as an indicator of an achievement of some other criterion.

 

If one considers the behavioral objective as a description

in order to guide instruction, then one should probably

 

use a description of the actual behavior the student is to
accomplish, i.e. to writer, to vote, to swim, to analyze,
to be aware of, or to value. In this case, the use of

Beh (l) or Beh (2) appears appropriate. On the other hand,

the use of an indicator or operational definition, is

 

concerned primarily with another problem, one of a more
narrow sc0pe, that of evaluating the results of the instruc-
tion. The use of an Operational definition or Beh (3) pre—
supposes the existence, implicit or explicit, of some
objective of a more general description, the objective for

which this behavior is an indicator or a testable symptom.

 

This interrelationship between indicator and indicant,
suggests the need for an organization or network of objec-

tives, a format of the descriptive structure between

 

l“Harry L. Ammerman, and William H. Melching, Th3
Derivation Analysis and Classification of Instructional
Objectives, Technical Report 66-H (Alexandria, Va.:
Human Resources Research Office, The George Washington
University, May, 1966), p. 18.

 

103

objectives as well as the form within any one objective.
This topic will be taken up later. At present, it is
necessary to go into greater detail concerning what is

meant by gontent.

Content
Content can be considered as kinds of prOpositions

r
l)’ 16 Facts can be conceived to be

or assertions.
singular propositions such as "This car is blue," "That
table is four feet long," etc. Concept can be treated

as definitions. The concept dew point is "the temperature

 

at which the water vapor in the air begins to condense."
As thus conceived, content can be thought of as elements
of knowledge expressible in verbal forms. Content acts
as nodes in the develOpment of cognitive networks. It

is the foci of the organization of behavior. Behavior
both reflects, and is determined by the structure,
cognitive and otherwise, in the learner.17 Content
determines that structure. Piaget in his observations on
structure notes that "No structure exists without a con-

struction, abstract or genetic, but these two types are

 

15H. S. Broudy, Othanel B. Smith, and Joe R. Burnett,
Democracy and Excellence in American Secondary Education
(New York: Rand, McNally, 196H5, p. 80.

16Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind (New York:
Barnes and Noble, 19A95.

l7J. Klir and M. Valach, Cybernetic Modelling
(Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 196‘7}

 

 

 

104

not so far apart as is usually believed."l8 Citing Godel,
he goes on to say that the content of any one structure

is the form of a lower structure. The concept of content
as rules to maintain a structure, and structure to con-
trol behavior is not new. Broudy implies this when he
divides his content into two sub categories, content as
descriptive concepts and principles, and content as

19

valuative concepts and norms. He points out that de-
scriptive concepts, such as classificatory, relational
and Operational concepts both filter the information which
comes in, putting it in the prOper position of the struc-
ture, and focuses our attention on those aspects of the
world for which we already have established a concept.
Valuative concepts by their very nature embody preferences.
Depending upon the valuative concepts we have embedded
in our COgnitive or attitudinal structure and the rules
-they project, our view of the world and our activities
toward it will be governed. To summarize, Broudy points
out that,
Just as descriptive concepts and principles are

the building stones of our cognitive structure for

analyzing, describing, and controlling our environ—

ment, so valuative concepts, attitudes, and norms

are the basic elements of our mental organization

for rating the things of our environment and for
judging the actions of individual and groups.20

 

 

18Jean Piaget, Le Structuralisme (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 19687, p. 117.
I9

Broudy, Democracy and Excellence, p. 122.

 

20Ibid., p. 139.

105

Some "systems" concepts might be helpful in making
the distinction between behavior and content clearer,
and developing a greater understanding of the relationship
between them. Miller21 has described the behavior/
content difference using two old terms in a new context,
purpose and goal, to indicate the internal and external
causative factors of behavior. Purpose, he describes as,
". . . the internally determined control process of the
system which maintains one of its variables at a given

steady state value."22

He goes on to explain that it is
by genetic information input, or by changes in the
psychological structure caused by learning, that a system
of preferential hierarchies of values is develOped, which
gives rise to decision rules which determine the organ—
ism's (or system's) preference for one internal steady

23

state value rather than another. Miller also points
out that, "A system may also have an external goal, such

as reaching a target in space, or developing a relation-

 

 

ship with any other system in the environment."214

21J. G. Miller, "Living Systems: Basic Concepts,"
Behavioral Science (June, 1965).

22

Ibid., p. 232.

23Ibid., p. 231.

2uIbid., p. 235.

106

These external goals, the external manifestation
of behavior, the observable portion of the circumstance
are related to the purpose, just as the behavior is
related to the content. Behavior may change for the same
content, i.e. structural rules, depending upon the
particular immediate stimuli or external environment.
For example, when classifying trees, the content, the
classificatory schema remains the same, but individual
particular response in behavior will depend upon the
particular tree in question. Similarly, a system may have
many goals with a single purpose. Or the external goal
may change constantly as when a hunter chases a young
fox, or a man searches for a wife by dating one girl
after another, while the internal purpose remains the
same. Another way of considering this distinction has
been brought out by Burrell, "What are you planning to
do?" can be answered by supplying the goal; "Why are you

25

doing that?" asks for the purpose. Further he explains,
the purpose of rules contrasts with the

goal of instructions. The goal of a set of
instructions, then, can be identified as in a
destination to be reached, a result produced, or
merely the faithful execution of the instructions
themselves. But rules are established to order
activity presently occurring or anticipated.26

 

25D. B. Burrell, "Obeying Rules and Following .
Instruction," Philosophy and Cybernetics, ed. by Frederic
J. Crosson, and Kenneth M. Sayre (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1967), p. 230.

26Ibid., p. 213.

107

Broudy makes the point that the psychological
version of a concept or content, is essential to curricu-

27

lum develOpment, but it is not sufficient. Strictly
speaking, the curriculum does not contain concepts for
example, but rather their symbolic and operational expres-
sions. The teacher cannot work directly with concepts,
but rather with the definitions and other verbal formula-
tions, and/or materials and instruments which build con—
cepts into the student's experiences. But the Psychological
version of the concept, if defined only in terms of some
behavioral indicator, does not reveal the structure of

the concepts and content in such a way as to indicate the
material and operations which must be used in teaching.
The content must be defined in lOgical form as well. It
must be defined independent of the behavior used to
indicate it, then it can be related to some indicative
behaviors.

It thus appears that content as an independent part
of the format of the description of the objective, is
both necessary, and sometimes sufficient, at least in the
early stages of the analysis of the prescription of
objectives. Johnson has pointed out that the format of
a particular intended learning outcome limits the range

of the possible appropriate learning experience. This is

27

Broudy, Democragy and Excellence, p. 123.

 

108

because the intended learning outcome, or educational
objectives has an activity or behavioral component, and
a structural or content component, and as Johnson puts
it, so does a learning experience.

A learning expereince has an activity component

and a content component, i.e., it involves some

kind of activity with some kind of content.

A curriculum item that deals with a skill-type

outcome restricts the range of appropriate

activities, but may not impose any limitations

on the content. On the other hand, an item

which concerns facts, concepts or generalizations

specifies content, but leaves considerable option

with respect to activity. When an affective

outcome is specified, neither content nor activity

may be greatly restricted, although most affects

have fairly definite referents (implying content)

and schools are concerned that most affective

outcomes be intellectually grounded (implying

activity).28

In summary, it appears that the form of the intended

learning outcome or educational objective is not a fixed
dimension for all contexts and all uses. It does
however, appear that two basic elements must be included
in most contexts and most usages, and these are the
elements of student activity or behavior and psychological
structure or content. The role of the educational
technologist is to help the policy maker describe his
objectives in terms most helpful to the next lower decision

maker. Being aware of the various complexities and dis-

tinctions appears to be more valid than blind acceptance

 

28Mauritz Johnson, Jr. "Definitions and Models in
Curriculum Theory," Educational Theory, XVII (Spring,

1967), p. 131.

 

109

to a fixed set of criteria for all cases. This is true
for form, it may also be true for the dimension explicit—

ness, which will be taken up next.

Explicitness

 

As argumentation over the explicitness dimension
builds up between two groups, they tend to polarize into
two positions on the end of a continuum. On the end
proposing a high degree of specificity, the following
remarks by Bloom represent one whole school of thought:

Our experiences suggest that unless the school

has translated the objectives into specific and

operational definitions, little is likely to be

done about the objectives. They remain pious

hopes and platitudes.29
Walker on the other hand has pointed out that specific
educational objectives, behavioral or otherwise, play
only a peripheral role in many curriculum projects, that
broad aims, goal statements etc. have more effect on the

30

participants. Finally, Merwin, with the help of
historical perspective points out some interesting changes
over time in the controversy between specific and general

description of educational objectives.

 

Benjamin 8. Bloom, "Quality Control in Education,"

 

Tomorrow's Teaching (Oklahoma City: Frontiers of Science
Foundation of Oklahoma, Inc., 1961), p. 57.
3O

Decker F. Walker, "A Study of Types of Goal State-
ments and Their Uses in a Curriculum DeveIOpment Project"
(paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Los Angeles, February, 1969).

110

Regarding the dimension of specific-versus-general
achievement to be evaluated, it would appear that we
are in the process of completing a cycle approximately
fifty years in length. . . . evaluation during the
first part of the century focused on very detailed
objectives related to skills. . . . At the 1967
Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, Glaser
presented graphical descriptions of the accomplish-
ments of individual students over time on relatively
minute units of learning. Between the publication
of these two reports, there has been considerable
emphasis on more general outcomes as reflected in
the "in—basket" approach and the "tab—item" approaches
to assessing the student's ability to apply his
learning to practical situations.31

This oscillation between specificity and generality is an
interesting phenomena which appears throughout educational
history. Some of the oscillation can perhaps be attributed
to confusion over the levels of usage. As Carpenter asks,

We are told by experts that we must define specifi—
cally the performance objectives in training and
education and I agree; but I ask further-—on what
level of abstraction are definitions to be framed?
. . Are we talking about the general goals, for
example, which are mainly formulated for public
information and propaganda purposes? Or are we
talking about the intermediate goals which we
think about in terms of curriculum development?
Or are we talking about the levels of specific
goals, standards and objectives against which we 32
can validate the learning we propose to accomplish?

 

31Jack C. Merwin, "Historical Review of Changing
Concepts of Evaluation," Educational Evaluation: New
Rolesijew Means (The Sixty—Eighth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II; Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1969), pp. 15-16.

32C. R. Carpenter, "A Constructive Critique of Edu-
cational Technology," AV Communication Review, XVI (Spring,
1968), p. 21.

 

 

 

111

The question of specificity is thus part of a larger
question namely, usage, which will be dealt with later.
Another aspect which might give insight into the

question of objectives specificity, and causes of the
oscillation phenomena, is the problem of economy of word
usage. This aspect is best understood through a phenomena
Zipf33 discovered, and one of the hypothesis he gave to
explain it. His primary hypothesis was that man distributes
his efforts in Operating along a line of least effort. He
considered man's speech as a set of tools used to convey
meanings in order to achieve objectives. In utilizing
the various tools such as words, man was economical, he
considered the cost/benefit factors and proceeded on the
basis of least effort. To analyze this phenomena of word
economy, he looked at both the economy of the listener,
and the economy of the speaker.

. . . if there are an m number Of different dis—

tinctive meanings to be verbalized, there will

be (1) a speakers economy in possessing a vocabu-

lary of one word which will refer to all the m

distinctive meanings; and there will also be (2)

an opposing auditor's economy in possessing a

vocabulary of m different words with one dis—
. . __ 3
tinctive meaning for each word.

 

 

These two opposing economies are of course in extreme

conflict, and Zipf hypothesized that the forces of these

 

33George Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of
Least Effort. Reprint (New York: Hafner Publishing Co.,
19655.

3A

 

 

Ibid., p. 21.

112

economies for both the speaker and the auditor would

cause a vocabulary balance in which the words used in any

 

language would be distributed in a smooth transition from
one economy to the other. Through many empirical studies
with many languages he did indeed find vocabulary balance.

One can see examples of words of great generality,
with many meanings which are used a great deal, while on
the other hand, some words which while not used as fre-
quently, are very specific and with singular meaning. And
there is a smooth transition between the two extremes.
One of the goals of those with an empirical bias seems
to be the reduction of the language to a system of one
meaning—one word and vice-versa. Many of the researchers
and evaluators belong to this bias. According to Zipf's
hypothesis, this would aid the auditor's or listener's or
decoder's economy. It would in fact make it a maximum.
It would however, make it extremely uneconomical from the
speaker's point of view. And since we are all speakers
and listeners utilizing the same brain for both efforts,
it would appear that the conflict of economies would
prevail and cause a smooth transition from one to the other
to take place, as is supported by empirical evidence in
natural languages around the world.

One could jest about the fact that evaluators are
i1] the role of listener when they ask about objectives and

tkmnnefore want specifics, while the teaching profession

113

are so used to being talkers, and so unaccustomed to
listening, that they prefer discussions in glittering
generalities. However, there is a serious side to the
factor of economies, and there may well be a cost/

benefit factor to be considered in attempting to establish
criteria for generality or specificity.

One may, for example consider the number of listeners
as a factor in determining the cost/benefit of the effort
on the speaker's part to become specific. This could be
considered two ways, one the number of listeners at any
one time, and the number of listeners over time. This
later aspect is largely determined by the stability or
change in the topic being discussed. For example, an
objective concerned with vacuum tubes, does not have a
long future, and therefore will not have as many listeners
over time. Boguslaw has referred to this problem as the
established-emergent continuum.35

Symbolically this can be summarized as follows:

A indicates the number on a generality scale (speaker economy)
B indicates the number of listeners in some unit
C indicates the number on a stability scale (1 equals stable)

Thus, the interaction effects appear that

K (a constant) is appPOXimately ABC

 

3c5Robert Boguslaw, The New Utopians (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1965).

 

11“

In other words, the greater the number of listeners in a
group, and/or the greater the stability of the topic, the
more specific the speaker must become in order to maintain
the economy at a balance. If he doesn't increase spe-
cificity he will probably lose the listener's (it's too
much effort to listen) and the stability will be lost
because not enough people learned it in order to perpetuate
it. It is a heuristic more than a final formula, but it
could help to explain some of the variants in specificity
of objectives, and give some guidelines for evaluating
others.

One final point in the analysis of Specificity
requires a small expansion on the topic of the speaker's

economy. Polyani points out that "we can know more than

"36

 

we can tell. Any good diagnostician can, with a little

 

experience "spot" the nature of a patient's syndrome by

the time he has walked across the room. From the point of
view of the patient or the intern, he is usually intangible
evidence. When pressed for an explanation, he finds that
he is hard pressed to communicate all of his knowledge
about how he made the diagnosis. He knows more than he

can tell. To the diagnostician, it is obvious. To the
layman its magic. Piaget has pointed out that once we

have learned a concept, we take as self—evident, what a

 

36Michael Polany, The Tacit Dimension (Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), p. A.

 

115

few years earlier we did not know existed. "Once a concept

 

is constructed, it is immediately externalized so that it

 

appears to the subject as a perceptually given property

 

of the object and independent of the subject's own mental

 

activity."37 Whitehead has called our misplaced emphasis
on external observables rather than on learned concepts

38

as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. "Until the

 

time is ripe for analysis, one has to work with unanalyzable

"39 In order to work with those who find that

concepts.
they know more than they can tell, one must allow non-
behavioral terms, where he may desire behavioral terms.

One may work toward the explicit expression, but he must

be cautious of eliminating the implicit before he has
Obtained the explicit. One must allow the general before
he can insist upon the specific.

In reflecting on what has been said, one might not
wonder if one should not ignore or throw out the negativis-
tic SIOgan, "Stamp out non—behavioral objectives," and
attempt to replace it with the more positive slogan, "Drive

toward operational objectives." In the words of a once

pOpular song, "You've got to accentuate the positive,

 

37Jean Piaget, Six Psychological Studies (New York:
Random House, 1967), p. xii.

 

38Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925), pp. 52-58.

39Anatol Rapoport, Operational Philosophy (New York:
Harpers and Brothers, 1953), p. 213.

 

 

116

eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative, and
don't mess with Mr. lnbetween." As long as one works
toward reliable communications, by tentatively accepting
unanalyzed concepts striking extensional bargains, and
then working toward greater and greater clarity, he will
continue working toward the goal of improved instruction,

without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Levels of Decision-Making

 

Earlier, it was pointed out that the specificity of
description was related to the level of usage or decision—
making. The levels of decision making have previously
been desiganted as Y, X, and W, corresponding roughly to

Simon's three principle steps, substantive planning, pro-

cedural planning and daily execution decisions.“O

Krathwohl has also indicated parallel levels and pointed
out that they require different levels of abstraction and
generality.

It is now clear that we need to analyze
objectives to several levels of specificity depend—
ing upon how we intend to use them. 'At the first
and most abstract level are the quite broad and
general statements most helpful in the development
of prOgrams of instruction. . . . at a second and
more concrete level, a behavioral objectives
orientation helps to analyze broad goals into
more Specific ones which are useful as the build—
ing blocks for curricular instruction. Third and

 

0Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York:
The Free Press, 1957), p. 967

 

117
finally, there is the level needed to create
instructional meterials. . . .Ul
Some writers will suggest certain criteria for the
description of objectives at each level. Krathwohl for
example, has suggested that the second level, which we

have designated the X level Should have a behavioral

 

objectives orientation or description to help analyze
broad goals into more Specific ones.“2 Krathwohl's
interpretation of behavior, seems closer to Bloom's or
Beh (2) than to Mager's or Beh (1) - Beh (3). Johnson
seems to imply that Mager's interpretation or Beh (3)

would fit best in level W.“3

Some content experts might
want the Y level to be gross generalities such as appear
in the college catalogues in their description of courses.
This writer however, feels that the levels of
decision making are best understood in terms of their
relationship to each other, rather than on an absolute
basis. Three types of relationships between levels will

be considered. There are undoubtedly multiple variations

or small step differences between these main groupings,

 

ulDavid R. Krathwohl, ”Stating Objectives Appro-
priately for Program, for Curriculum, and for Instructional
Materials Development," Journal of Teacher Education, XVI
(March, 1965).

A2

 

Ibid., p. 8”.
“3

Johnson, "Definitions and Models," p. 13“.

118

but for heuristic value, there appears to be some benefit

in reducing the number to three.

The first type of relationship is replicativef“4

 

The objective of the course is to enable the student to
run a lathe, so that he can enter a factory to run a
lathe. The objective at level Y is running a lathe in a
factory, while the objective at level X is the high
fidelity teaching situation created from the Y level,
i.e. running a lathe in the school shop. In this case
the criteria for evaluating X is the same as for Y. The
transfer of learning should be nearly 100 per cent.
Normally, we talk about this type of relationship as
training. The criteria can be internal or external and
measurable both at the end of the course, and later on the
job.

The replicative relationship can also exist between
simple subsets Of an analyzed objective at any one level.
When the achievement of the subparts added together,
equals the total objective, then there is a replicative
relationship between the terminal objective and the
enabling objectives.

The second type of relationship will be termed hgmge

morphic. Ashby has pointed out that our knowledge can be

 

“Broudy, Democracy and Excellence, p. A8.

 

119

A5

partial and yet complete in itself. One can know for
example, the simple facts about the results of multiplying
evens and evens, or odds and evens, etc. without knowing
the complete truth about multiplication. One can see
parts of the jigsaw puzzle and with it "know” the whole
picture. Gilbert has made a major criticism of education

for their lack of understanding the distinction between

acquirement and accomplishment which illustrates this

 

 

homomorphic relationship between levels.

Achievement has two aspects: accomplishment and
acquirement. This statement may at first sound
like a semantic confusion. It does concern a con-
fusion, but one that has had serious consequences
in education. Acquirement connotes achievement
produced by learning; accomplishment has the added
connotation of acquirements that are useful in
social intercourse. Acquirements refer to what
the student has learned, whereas accomplishment 6
refers to the value we place on what he has learned.

To illustrate this distinction as well as the homomorphic
relationship, we can consider an example. If a vocational
school wants its students to "understand electrical wiring

' it can translate this two ways, into behavioral

diagrams,‘
objectives.
1. Given an electrical circuit, the student can

draw a diagram of it.

 

 

“5W. Ross Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics,
(New York: Science EditionS,IJOhnTWiley and Sons, Inc.,
1963), p. 10A).

A6

Thomas F. Gilbert, "Praxeonomy: A Systematic
Approach to Identifying Training Needs," Management of
Personnel Quarterly, VI (Fall, 1967), p. 22.

 

 

120

2. Given a diagram of an electrical circuit, the
student can wire a real circuit.

If they ask which objective the student should ultimately
be able to accomplish, they find that the answer is 2.
Empirical study shows however, that if the student learns
l, he will be able to do 2; that is, l is homomorphic with
2. Besides, it is cheaper and easier to teach the student
1 than it is 2. The result is there are two objectives,

one at the X level, "what we want the student to accomplish"

 

(2), and the other at the W level, "what we want the

teacher to teach" (l) acquirement.

 

This homomorphic relationship can take place between
any two levels of decision making, but making this rela-
tionship explicit can help to identify the description
most valuable at both levels.

Finally, a third relationship that can occur between

levels of objectives is what will be termed generative.

 

In this case, the reference is to the use of some "enabling"
objective as a seeding, as a "kick" in some direction, as
distinguished from the intended learning outcome which may
result from learnings outside of the controlled school
setting. Developing "curiosity" about space travel, which
is then learned through outside readings and watching TV
could be an example. For those Skeptical about this

relationship, Kagan has pointed out that "natural" curiosity

121

A7

may in reality be a learned phenomena. By "teaching"

certain basic hypothesis, by establishing certain cate—
gories, by focusing attention and providing the student
with his "own" goals, one may generate a learning outside
of the regular "teaching" situation. In discussing his
own hypothesis, Kagan says,

Distinctiveness of events recruits the child's
attention and can maintain it for five, ten, or
even twenty seconds. But sustained attention for
minutes requires more than discrepancy; it requires
the possession of structures or chains of cognitive
units that are specifically activated by the event.
When one sees a three—year old devote a half an
hour to exploration of an old telephone, there is
a temptation to smile and mumble something about
the child's natural curiosity. However, long
periods of sustained involvement are neither
inherent in the event nor part of the child's
natural equipment. It can be taken for granted
that this particular child has either watched a
telephone being used, or spoken into a telephone
mouthpiece himself or heard his parents explain
what telephone is for.A8

He goes on to "explain" natural curiosity.

Sustained involvement of any child is dependent
on that child's previous acquisition of a set of
hypotheses and reactions appropriate to the object.
Without prior learning, a potential thirty—minute
exploration can be reduced to less than thirty

seconds. In short, curiosity may be only a
romantic name for that phenomena that occurs when
a child tries out a set of acquired hypotheses on 9

some new object that captures the child's attention.

 

u7Jerome Kagan, "His Struggle for Idnetity,"
Saturday Review, December 7, 1968.

A8

 

Ibid., p. 82.

ugIbid.

 

The teaching of "hypothesis" at one level in order to
generate "curiosity behavior" at another level is there-
fore an example of this generative relationship.

Simpson on the other hand, has called attention to
the need to help students develOp evaluation skills. He
cogently argues that most learning takes place outside of
the classroom anyway, and that much more learning could
take place if students developed skills for realistically
planning and evaluating their own educational experiences.50
Thus the teaching of film evaluation techniques might
help the student both discriminate his choice of films and
increase what he learns from them. Thus evaluation
learning at one level can allow another force to generate
an objective at a higher level. The tremendous influence
TV has had on the new generation, if for no other reason
than the number of hours spent in front of it . . . more
than in a classroom situation, can be utilized as a supple—

51, 52

menting force of positive feedback, to generate an

objective at one level, from another at a lower level,

 

50Ray H. Simpson, Improvinngeaching-Learning
Process (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1953).

51Magoroh Maruyama, "The Second Cybernetics:
Deviation—Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes," Modern
Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, ed. by
Walter Buckley (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1968).

52Leslie T. Wilkins, "A Behavioral Theory of Drug
Taking," Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral
Scientist, ed. by Walter Buckley (Chicago: Aldine Pub-
IiShing Company, 1968).

 

 

 

 

123

either through the use of hypothesis or evaluation
learning, or perhaps some other seeding techniques.

The generative relationship also includes the
learning of "irrelevant" material which serves initially
as scaffolding for later permanent knowledge. It may
often be necessary to learn the vocabulary of the parts
of some piece of equipment in order to learn to assemble
it. Later, once the assemblage is learned, the vocabulary
can be forgotten, ignored, and is ”irrelevant." But it
had a generative power relationship. X, the vocabulary,
generated a behavior Y, the assemblage through the medium
of a simple check list and schematic diagram. The point
is, if the relationship between the levels of decision
making was made explicit, some otherwise "irrelevant"
objectives might be described as very "relevant" genera—
tive objectives.

Another instance of the generative relationship,
might be that of relearning or regeneration. This could
be the case for example when a foreign language is taught
at a young age to take advantage of the maturation age of
the individual, so that at a later stage of his life, when
circumstances require it, he can relearn the language.
The key problem here is that at certain ages, certain
things can be learned that can pop be learned later. If
learned at an earlier age however, they can be {elearned

or regenerated with ease at a later stage of life.

In conclusion, the description of objectives is
related to the level of decision making at which they are
being prescribed. These levels have been designated for
this paper as W, X and Y. It was considered by the author
however, that the relationship between levels was as
important in determining the description of objectives
as the levels themselves. Three types of relationship were
considered, replicative, in which the lower level was a
mirror image of the upper level, homomorphic, in which the
lower level was an abstracted model of the upper level,
and generative, in which the lower level is the embryo
or seedling of the upper level. In any description of
objectives, if some indication of the relationship can
be made it would appear to be helpful both for guiding
instruction, and for evaluating results. Soltis has
pointed out that a general so that relationship can exist
between two objectives with the same purpose but at dif—
ferent levels of abstraction,

. . . we Speak of teaching someone the facts
about the Civil War so that he will understand
the current segregation problem, or we speak
of teaching someone how to Shift gears so that
he may learn to Operate a motor vehicle.53

It is this writer's contention that a more explicit set

of so that descriptions including the particular type of

 

53Jonas F. Soltis, An Introduction to the Analysis
of Educational Concepts (New York: Addison-Wesley Pub-
lishing Company, 1968), p. 33.

 

 

relationship involved would aid in clarity, and assist
in improving the communication power of educational
objectives. This introduces the idea of an organization

of objectives.

Organization of Objectives

 

Tyler has pointed out the problem of the prolifera-
tion of seemingly concrete statements of objectives that
attends the first efforts toward behavioral objectives.5u
Generally long lists of objectives written in Magerian
terms are produced, but they tend to have no organizational
structure, by which they can be related to each other.

As a result, mutually supporting objectives of different
levels of specificity are treated as if they were separable
and parallel. In order to describe the relevance of the
objective, Tyler recommends that the objectives be
organized, or at least reorganized in order to make
apparent the logical relations between the more specific
types of behaviors. These relationships are obscured by
long atomistic lists of isolated activities.

In summary, then an organization of the objec-

tives in terms of a relatively small number of
basic behaviors comparable as to level of
generality, and a corresponding breakdown of these

behaviors to a second (and perhaps third) level of
Specificity will improve the list for its main

 

5“Ralph W. Tyler, Analysis of the Purpose, Pattern,
Score, and Structure of the Officer Education Program of
Air University, DERL Technical Memorandum 55-56’(Alabama:
Maxwell AIr Force Base, Officer Educational Research
Laboratory, May, 1955), p. 72.

 

 

 

126

purpose——to guide the other parts of the
curriculum building process.55

In other words, one must not only be concerned
with the form of the individual objectives, or with its
specificity, one must also consider the stragegic form
or pattern of multiple objectives. The list of the
atomistic set of objectives, can be likened to the clues
ineadetective story.

At a critical point in the development of a typical
detective story, the reader is informed that he now
has all the clues available to the detective hero,
indeed all the evidence needed for the solution of
the crime. Obviously, the sense in which the

reader has the evidence is one which does not imply
that he has recognized the evidential items as such,
much less used them to provide differential support
for a theoretical reconstruction of the crime. Such
a theoretical reconstruction is thus "doubly"
creative in comparison with the reader's situation:
It not merely singles out the clues as relevant from
the mass of environmental camouflage, but patterns
them into an apprOpriate argument.56

 

Scheffler goes on to distinguish between following a

 

proof (appreciating the force of the detective's "de-

duction") and producing a proof (actually constructing

 

the prOper pattern into which to fit the facts). Now the
same analogous thinking can be said about a set of
objectives. One can help point out the clues which are
relevant, by producing long lists of Specific concrete
behavioral objectives. However, does this convey the

"total meaning" of our intentions? Probably not.

 

55

56Israel Scheffler, The Language of Education
(Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1960),

p. 69.

Ibid., p. 71.

 

127

Therefore, it is necessary also to provide the pattern

by which the objectives are related, so that the individual
develOping the instructional materials, or the curriculum
committee planning the course sequence, can follow the
intent of the global objective. Some descriptions of

educational objectives which utilize an organizational

57, 58

approach already exist, and provide an example of

its potential when elaborated with some of the explicit
relationships between levels just identified. Carpenter
summarizes the discussion on the topic when he says,

Instead of talking about a single set of goals
all on the same level-~whether it is in the con—
text of a single course or curriculum or of an
institution, or of an educational system--we
should consider the possibility of defining
differentiated hierarchies of levels of instruc—
tional objectives, starting with generalized
statements which establish certain kinds of
purposes and going more and more specifically to
the very detailed objectives for units of train—
ing or education.59

The curriculum technologist must not only help the policy
maker prescribe and describe objectives, he must help him

organize them also.

 

57Will French and Associates, Behavioral Goals of
General Education in High School (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1957).

8

5 Nolan C. Kearney, Elementary School Objectives
(New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1953).

59

 

Carpenter, "A Constructive Critique," p. 21.

128

Conclusions

 

The question was asked, "What is the role of the
educational technologist in helping to determine how
the objectives prescribed should be explicitly described?"
To help answer this question, the dimensions of descrip—
tion suggested by Bloom were used as guidelines. These
were form, explicitness and level of decision making.

From these it was concluded that an organization of
objectives was perhaps the major requirement in the
description of objectives, the other dimension being
subset problems.

It was concluded for example that both behavior and
content appear necessary for the form of the objective
regardless of the level of Specificity. The level of
specificity was closely related to the level of decision
making or the distance of the objective away from the
student. The semantic problems of the various meanings
of such a primary term as behavior indicated that slogans
may add more heat than light on the topic of description.
In addition the reCOgnition of the problems of Speaker
economy should temper the insistence of the listener on
specificity. It is the role of the curriculum technologist
to know both Sides of the problem, and work toward helping
the policy maker clarify his meanings and describe the
objectives in terms which communicate most fully to the
listener. Organizing the objectives appears to be an

appropriate technique.

CHAPTER IV

A MODEL OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

The discussion up to this point has led to the con-
clusion that certain key elements effect the need, formu-
lation and description of educational objectives. In
order to summarize some of the findings, indicate some
of the distinctions, illustrate some of the relationships
which have been previously discussed, this chapter will
develop a theoretical model of curriculum development.

Initially, an overview of some of the purposes,
functions and limitations of models in general will be
given. Then a basic format of the curriculum development
model will be given, from which selected sections will be
expanded. The expanded sections of the model will be
described both verbally and through a flowchart diagram.
These will include both the elements and the relationships
under examination. Examples of how the model can serve
to catalog tool, techniques and criteria will be given.
Examples of possible further studies will also be

included to demonstrate the model's generating powers.

129

130

Models

The concept of models and the technique of model
building has gained wide acceptance as a research tool.
At the same time, the term and concept have, like all
"widely accepted" terms and concepts suffered from what
Richards has referred to as the degradation of learned
words by the tongues of its less expert users.l Excellent
discussions of the variety of definitions and meanings of

2, 3

the term mpdgl can be found in several sources. For
this paper the discussion by Rosenblueth and Wiener“ was
considered as a base definition. Critical to their
discussion were some of the following points. Without
models, explicit or implied, there is no understanding.
For without simplified models one should have to try to

"grasp directly" whatever part of reality one is investi—

gating. That is, man would have to try to match completely

 

 

11. A. Richards, Design for Escape: World Educa-

tion Through Modern Media (New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, Inc., 1968), p. 7H.

 

 

2Leonard C. Silvern, Systems Engineering of Educa-
tion I: The Evolution of Systems Thinking in Education
(Lbs Angeles: Education and Training Consultants Co.,
1965).

3Greg Trzebiatowski, "An Evaluation of the Instruc—
tional Systems Approach in Higher Education" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967).

“A. Rosenblueth and N. Wiener, "The Role of Models
in Science," Philosophy of Science, XII (19A5).

 

 

 

131

in his mind, point for point, the objects of his study-—
which he could do only if his mind and brain were at
least coextensive with them. Man's mind is finite, the
reality infinite. Man must abstract.

Models are not a depiction of reality, rather it
is selected elements abstracted for a purpose. Generally
this purpose is to put some kinds of problems into bold

5

relief. This problem-pointing characteristic of models
deserves to be emphasized, but there is also the converse
to this advantage of models, which also deserves emphasis.
If one uses any one model too much, he is likely to con—
fuse his model with reality. Since all models are
simplifications, pp model is sufficient to deal with all
reality. As Miller and Starr put it,

A micrOSCOpe is an excellent devise for looking

at bacteria, but useless for seeing stars. A

telescope is fine for the stars but not suitable

for seeing bacteria. And neither is any good for

reading books. For adequately seeing the universe

we need all three: microscope, telescope, and

good vision. A person endowed with only microscopic

vision would have a rather low survival index.6

The proposed model is a model, not the model. It

will attempt to point out some areas for further research,

it will attempt to provide some heuristics for more

detailed analysis at some later date. It is a result of

 

5David W. Miller and Martin K. Starr, The Structure
of Human Decisions (Englewood Cliff, N.J.: Prentice—Hall,

Inc., 1967), p. I52.

61bid.

 

 

132

extensive analysis of other’nwxhihs, many of which tended
to convey the impression they were 223 model. One's
models can serve as blinders instead of aids to better
vision if they are allowed to give the impression of being
a "total" early warning system, when in fact they are

only "partial." It is therefore explicitly stated
beforehand that this is simply a model which attempts

to point out certain key junctions in the search for

criteria by which one can evaluate educational objectives.

A Model of Curriculum Development

 

First the "real life" universe in which all process
takes place will be simplified to concentrate on three
basic categories or systems which appear to have the
greatest influence on any curriculum development process.
First, there is the "basic values" system which forms the
foundation for any social action in the society. This
most directly connects to the more abstract portion of
a curriculum develOpment process. Next, there is the
"curriculum develOpment" system which interacts with the
"basic values" system at one end, and the "instructional
develOpment" system at the other. It's primary purpose
is the translation of the basic values into instructional
objectives. That is, it is concerned with the solution
of the gpap problem in education: the determination of
educational objectives, the generation of alternatives,

the selection and description of educational objectives

133

which can then be used as criterion for the "instructional
development" system. This is the primary system under
consideration in this paper, and will be examined in

more depth later. The third system is the "instructional
development" system which has the primary purpose of
solving the Egg problem of education. That is, it is
concerned with developing methodologies which more effec-
tively and more efficiently produce the intended learning
outcomes in the student. It is recognized that there are
many more interrelations and interactions that can and

do take place in reality and which tend to Show up as

the analysis goes into greater and greater detail. However,
since it is also recognized that models are simplifica—
tions for a purpose, this model is started with a broad
simplification indicating the general context of a "cur-
riculum development" system. This context is indicated

in Figure 1. Later figures will add details and tend to
elaborate the concept of the model.

The "curriculum development" system is concerned
primarily with two problems, the wpap problem, or deter—
mining the intended learning outcomes to pass on to the
instructional development system; and how to describe
that decision in a manner to aid the next decision level
below it. The gpap problem is developed in a vertical
manner of analysis or synthesis. The top level, separated

to the left in the block diagram (see Figure 2) is the

13A

 

"Basic Values”
System

 

"Curriculum
Development"
System

 

 

 

 

"Instructional
Development"
System

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. l.--First level of detail basic systems of
curriculum development.

substantive planning, or grand strategy decision-making
problem. The middle group is concerned with the procedural
planning or tactical level. The group to the right is that
of the routine actions or the daily execution level of
decision making. Each of these problems are indicated

by two description boxes connected by a diamond shape
decision transformation connection.

The horizontal arrows are description problem indi-

 

cators. These problems take place at each level and are
concerned with translating the intended meaning of the

decision makers into terms communicable to the next level.

.pcmEooam>mO EOHSOHLLSO mo mEmpmmmOSm Hempop mo HO>OH osoommln.m .mfim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w
_
3 [IV 3 _
\/ _
II I .I. .10 lu'll ‘ 1|. I a a. “
./\
x .?llllv x
>
F)
3
1 < 4
w w
\/ 4
_ /\
Empmmm _ N a
pcmEooam>mQ ESHSOfiLmso . . l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,
.... .A.
1‘. ".
“" l‘i

.. -
-“r"

, .—
... ...S J

.....,,.-

.~..-~J.v

~- A
4 .— ~
.o-‘w ~

 

'r,‘\ ‘1

1“
“AI--
v-~‘
..»_
1
‘r‘-
~\

, .
-._~
‘11
“ .4
..§
.
.. L...
“ (.
\-’
u‘l‘r
,, .
—"-\
.
V 1
v t
-
FI\
"
“;«
~
.
-hp
.‘ .
.
“
«C
\

 

136

Figure 2 displays the second level of detail and
reintroduces the descriptive subsystems, W, X, Y, and Z,
which have been previously discussed in the paper.

These will be reviewed prior to further analysis. Z is
defined as the explicitly stated real—life, task/role
context under investigation at the moment and the implied
value system that gives it importance. It might be on a
gross national level and be such contexts as civic respon-
sibility, the relationship of man to his social order,

or political behavior. It may be on a more narrowly
prescribed aspect of real-life, survival in the desert,
piloting a plane or commanding a platoon. The primary
point is that it is a contextual situation that can in
fact be found in real-life, and which normally involves
interaction of people with an environment.

Y is the explicitly stated objectives which are
considered to be those most valuable in context Z. These
are fairly general, but generally contain both a behavior
element and a knowledge or content element. They are
generally derived elements from Z and are usually based
on value judgments of experts. Examples may be "Support
rights and freedoms Of all individuals," "understand
Problems of international relations" or "comprehend what
is read." The primary point is that it is directly related
to a real—life context, it is considered of value and it

is capable of further analysis.

137

X is down a step at a point where some broad
general educational decisions must be made which would
most directly effect the instructional process. X is
the set of explicitly stated objectives which are con—
sidered to be those most required to accomplish Y. Again,
these normally will have both a behavior and a content
element, but at a much more specific level of discourse.
For example, "Take prOper care of equipment, clothing,
food, and other products for which he is responsible."

It may not apply directly to the Z, but it is related.

It can be evaluated directly. The primary point here is
that it is explicitly related to a Y, and can be evaluated
directly.

W is an explicitly stated objective which is used to
guide the learning most directly, which is used as the
basis for the evaluation, and which is explicitly related
to X. Magerian style objectives appear very appropriate
in this level of decision making, "Given a human Skeleton,
the student must be able to correctly identify by labeling
at least A0 of the following bones." These objectives
while quite specific and able to be evaluated, may not in
themselves appear to be of great value, but their value
lies in their relationship with X which must be made
explicit, and which can be one of the three types mentioned.

The model is analyzed to three levels of detail.

First, the "curriculum development" system was indicated

138

embedded within a larger or supra—system. Next, it was
shown as a system which contained interrelated sub—
systems. A diamond indicating transformation of informa-
tion from one level to another, occurs when some or all
of the following influences or pressures converge to
effect a decision—making process.
a. The Egg or the
Leverage Points

These are people or institutions which exert pres—
sure to force a decision and/or make a decision. For
example, at the Z to Y diamond, the U.S. Office of Educa-
tion is probably a leverage point. So also are such per—
sonages as Conant and Zacharias. At a lower level, in
the diamond between X and W, there are probably organiza-
tions such as the Educational Testing Services which have
strong influences if not direct decision making powers in
the translation of objectives from one level to the other.
The E29 will undoubtedly be many and varied at any one
diamond. They will also be different for each of the
specific curriculum change taking place. Regardless,
the model indicates that when these people or aggregates
of people are involved in decision making, they constitute

a parameter or input into the diamond at that level.

b. The How
When leverage points exert their pressure, or make

their decisions which effect the diamond, there are

139

generally certain key methods or processes that are
involved. The four basic techniques or EQELE are:

1. Generation of alternatives by deductive

and/or analytic methods.

People may influence a decision by analyzing a level
such as Y and generating a large number of potential X's.
For example, given a value statement (Y) that a student
should practice good citizenship within the school com-
munity, a superintendent may suggest that certain basic
subject matter, containing specific major topics be taught
in the schools. He may even promulgate a list of objec—
tives (X) to be achieved in his school district to
accomplish the general goal (Y). He is providing alterna-
tives. They may be good or bad, they may be accepted by
the teachers or rejected, they may have been generated
from a quick personal and subjective analysis of the
general goal, or they may have been generated from a
formal committee charged with analyzing the topic using
the latest technological tools for such an analysis. In
any case, they are a generation of alternatives, which
act as an influence in the decision making process between
the higher and lower levels.

2. Consolidation of alternatives or "clustering"

by inductive and/or synthetic methods.
People or organizations may influence the transforma—

tion of information from lower to upper levls by an

IAO

inductive process of forcing existing alternatives into

a gestalt or theoretic whole or new configuration. For
example, the movement away from strictly separated sub—
ject matter into core curriculum involves this synthetic
method. Project oriented curriculum, where many Specific
skills such as adding and subtracting numbers, writing
English compositions, analyzing data, and develOping team
interaction, etc. are all combined under the problem—
Solving rubric of gaming and simulation illustrate this
clustering technique, and influence in the decision
making process between levels.

3. Simultaneous or cyclic alternating of analysis

and synthesis, or "anasynthesis."

A person or group may tend to exert influence by
concentrating on analyzing a problem, or situation, and
providing alternatives. Another group may concentrate on
the reverse process. When these two activities or
methodologies are consciously or subconsciously combined
simultaneously, or at least alternated in very Short
cycles by one of the leverage points, then a third
methodology evolves which is known as "anasynthesis" or
the "systems approach" for generating and recombining
alternatives.

A. Selection criteria.

In addition to the generation or consolidation of
alternatives, there is a necessity to eliminate some of

the alternatives from further consideration. This is done

1A1

by selection, which is an evaluation process, which
involves criteria. These criteria are either explicit,
in which case they are known to all members of the
decision making process, and effect them all similarly,
or they are implicit, which tend to influence each of
the individual leverage points differently, and are felt
in the system only indirectly. In either case, both types
of criteria will be an influence or input in the diamond
or decision making process between levels.
c. The Technology Introduced to

Formalize the Process

Finally, a complementary influence to the indi-
vidual leverage points is the technological tools and
models which formalize and make explicit, not only the
leverage points themselves but also each of the subset
methodologies, or how's, such as the generation of
alternatives, criteria, etc.

All of these factors appear to effect the transforma-
tion of information in the decision making processes that
take place between levels. When some or all of these are
present a decision is made which effects the level on both
sides of the diamond. A symbolic representation of this
set of influences on the diamond is shown in Figure 3,
which indicates a third level of detail in analysis, and
moves away from a purely descriptive static model, and
toward a more dynamic representation of the curriculum

development process.

1A2

Transformational Decision-Making
Process Block

a. Who or Leverage Points involved in
decision-making

Technology introduced to formalize the

WW process

Generation of alternatives by deductive
and/or analytic methods

Consolidation of alternatives or "cluster-
ing" by inductive and/or synthetic methods

Explicit Criteria uses in selecting from
among alternation

' Implicit Criteria used in selecting from

among alternation

Type of Relationship

A. Replicative i.e. A
B. Homomorphic i.e. B
C. Generative i.e. C

Fig. 3.—-Third level of detail.

1A3

At this point in the analysis, it is possible to
indicate some potential uses of the model both as a
device for organizing previous and possibly future
findings, and as a device for generating and guiding
future studies. First, a simple listing or cataloging of
some models, tools or techniques (See Table 1) that appear
appropriate for the curriculum technologist to use to
help formalize specific aspects of the model. Next (see
Table 2), a brief list of some potential studies that the
model appears to suggest at some of the parameters or
input points. Finally, in the last section, the problem
of description will be returned to, and the potential of

the model for handling that question, will be explored.

Description

 

The question of whether a particular form, degree of
Specificity or organization provides more reliable com—
munications than another form, degree of specificity or
organization, has been thoroughly argued and occasionally
analyzed. It is the position of this writer that the
question of reliable communications is basically an
empirical question, capable of empirical testing, once
the dimensions have been somewhat more clearly analyzed
and differentiated. Mager established the format and
criterion for an empirical testing of description when he
said, "You can test whether a written objective clearly

defines a desired outcome by answering the following

1AA

mmam HaoasaomOHHnm

 

Ammmav Locmsmax
wcHLSpomo moaaom waspufipo pHOHHQEH

mm .a
manms .aa Asomfiv prmflpzo
on .Q Amzmav Oxfipcpoge mocw>mapm manpowpo OHOHHme
mm .o Aromav popcmxoa< wcflosopo
homeomcoo :oflpmpHHOmcoo

msufis .qa Amomav spasm:
mcflpmmoopom

Amsmfiv pzmspm
mpgppaocH Hpoapapo

 

as .a
we .O Azmmav cmmmcmam
Asmmav coupom mappocoo pCOOSOm
Amsmflv mcfleoapz
mm .o pew cmEpoEE¢ mammamc< pom . coflpmpmcoo
wm.wm .oo Amwmmav cowsmo sowmeHmHucmpH 0:3
pxoB CH mocopommm Hospmpxm mmp< Emanopm HOQEmm Hmnhm> Honszm Hopoz
coflpmooq
.maooe HMOHwOHOCSOmB Hmfipcmpomll.a mqm<B

 

1A5

 

.mCOHmHomp moaaoo Hashes paw
mmwcmco OOpOHmeQ cmmzpmn cofipmamhpoO w mnmcp ma .0
.mCOHmHomp opposm powpmpd Op mfipmpfipo mm: .o
.mQOHmHomp ESHSOHLLSO
msofi>opo CH poms mfiLOOHLO ufioaaoefl on» ocflesoump .m
.mpmxms >OHHOQ Ofipmsmcpme mo omupHEEoo ESHSOHLLSO m sm>fio

muofimfiomp AOHHOQ Hopped
pom COHOOHOmLO cmmzpmo cofipmamssoo m phone ma .0
.mcoflmflomp >Ofiaoo mappsm so mean mo powwow poapmpo .o
mpprmE do moan HmOHQQOmOHH3o mabmpopo one ocflspmpmp .m
.wcflpome SOHHOQ coflumospo mo psmoo m co>flo

prOmOflHdom ppm mmsoflccomp mflmzamcw use: .poc OH
wpcmpmmmfip mflpmpflpo coapomamm esp was so: .Om OH
so so m Op OHOOOHHoom mosofls£OOQ mammamcm < mp<

wx beam on» cospopo
:wcflpmpmSHo: m Hafiz .m.3 Hmpo>mm cospopo Op x mmszawcm mco MH

wx mflzp pom w.3 m>flpmpocmw asmhmzoo pwos on» who pmcz

ww mflcp Low m.x mpfimfisomplmpo O>HmeHHoOL one ppm pmnz

wppCOSHmcH Hospfl>fipcfi pawn» mo :pwcoppm O>Hpmams opp ma pmnz
wuomnopo Ofimflomom was» CH mpmxme moaaoo on» was 0:3

sapfiaqu

aflzmcoapmfipm

soapmpfiaomcoo

coapmpocmo

on:

 

mommnuoozm

HOQEsm Hmppp>

Honssm
appoz

 

.mmflpspm OLSpsm Hmecmpomll.m mqm<B

1A6

question: Can another competent person select successful
learners in terms of the objective so that you, the

Objective writer, agree with the selection."7

In light
of the discussion concerning the distinction between
curriculum and instruction, this would only apply to the
W description in the "instructional development" system.
However, with some modification, the basic format of
having each level's description tested by the action of
the next level and evaluated by the first, appears sound
as a basic evaluation design.

Thus, as an example, the X's determined by the
policy makers at that level, can be translated into a
variety of descriptions, such as student behavior vs.
teacher behavior descriptions, or single level descrip—
tions vs. an organizational approach. The results of the
next level's decision making, such as test items generated,
sub objectives generated, etc. can then be judged and

evaluated by the original X level decision makers to

determine which mode communicated their meaning.

Conclusions

 

A theoretic "curriculum development" system has been
presented to help act as a problem pointer by providing a

conceptual schema for both organizing some of the evidence

 

7Robert F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives
(Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1962), p. 12.

1A7

found in a review of the literature, and for generating
suggestions for further study. The model was first
presented, its focal points indicated, and some exampled
of its organizing and generating power given. In order
to prevent the model from becoming a problem blinder, it
has been recognized that anj conceptual schema stands
midway between past and future evidence. Nevertheless,
at the present moment, the model does appear to warrant
both further investigation, and increased use as an
organizer and generator in the daily operations of a

curriculum technologist.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The national interest in improving education has
generated an increased interest in educational objectives.
Some of the interest has been generated around the question
of E923 objectives education should be attempting to
accomplish. More interest has been generated around the

question of what form and what degree of specificity the

 

objective should be described in. Educational tech-
nologists amongst others have been actively promoting the
increased use of behavioral terms in describing objectives.
Some reaction to the use of educational objectives at all,
has been noted. A stronger reaction to excessive insistence
on behavioral objectives is becoming more evident. A
greater understanding of the meaning, role and purpose
of objectives in education appeared beneficial for both
educational technologist in Specific, and the educational
community in general.

The purpose of this study has been to critically
analyze the concept of educational objectives through an
extensive review of the literature in order to answer

four basic questions.

1A8

1A9

1. Is there a real need for objectives in educa-
tion to be prescribed and explicitly described?

2. If so, what is the position of the educational
technologist with regard to prescribed and
explicitly stated objectives?

3. What is the role of the educational technologist
in helping to determine gpap objectives should
be prescribed and explicitly described?

A. What is the role of the educational technologist
in helping to determine how the objectives pre-
scribed Should be explicitly described?

In other words, the study was an exploratory study
for (1) criteria by which one could decide if one should
have objectives at all, if so, (2) the criteria for deter-
mining the position of the educational technologist in
regard to the prescription and description of the objec-
tives, (3) the tools and criteria the educational
technologist could provide for determining what objectives
they should be, and finally (A) the criteria the educa-
tional technologist could provide for evaluating the
description of the objectives which had been prescribed.

Chapter II reviewed the literature concerning the
first three questions, while the third chapter was devoted
to question four. In Chapter IV, a model was developed to

summarize the results of the analysis and to identify some

150

key concepts and critical decision points in any
evaluation of educational objectives.

The conclusions which have been drawn and the
recommendations which can be made as a result of the
analysis described above will make up the content of this
chapter. The order or presentation will be first, a
summary of conclusions developed for each of the questions
asked, followed by some general conclusions. Next, a set
of recommendations will be given, both for further study
into the problem, and for implementation of some of the

conclusions.

Conclusions

 

Question 1

 

"Is there a real need for objectives in education
to be prescribed and explicitly described?"

Analysis of this question brought out several dis-
tinctions. First, the distinction was made between the
philOSOphical biases each curriculum determiner has,
which not only color his perception of needs, but provides
implicit criteria by which he makes any evaluation. It
was concluded that persons with empiricistic biases tend
to insist upon specific explicitly described objectives,
while those with more rationalistic or intuitive biases
tend to prefer more generally described or even implicitly

"felt" objectives. The answer to the question thus did

151

not appear to have a simple yes or no answer, but rather
was determined by implicit criteria generated by philo—
sophical biases.

The second distinction made appeared more helpful
in providing clearer criteria for deciding if one should
have objectives at all. This was the distinction between
"extemporaneous design" and "pre-design" instruction. It
was concluded that extemporaneous instruction with its
immediate feedback and flexible adjustment to changing

conditions did not have a great need forgpredetermined

 

explicitly stated objectives. Pre-designed instruction

 

with its requirement for preplanned materials and relatively
slow and delayed feedback system appears to require pre-
determined and explicitly stated objectives.

Next, there was a distinction found between the uses
of evaluation in the instructional process. "Norm-
referenced" evaluation which had as its purpose, the dif-
ferentiation of students, did not appear to require as
concise or specific a set of objectives as might at first
appear necessary. "Criterion-referenced" evaluation on
the other hand, which was used not only to evaluate the
student against a standard, but more importantly, to
differentiate between different instructional strategies
or tactics, required an educational objective sufficiently
well defined and agreed upon to act as the criterion for

the evaluation.

152

Question 2

 

"If so, what is the position of the educational
technologist with regard to prescribed and explicitly
stated objectives?"

In analyzing this question, it was concluded that
the concept of educational technologist was too broad and
required differentiation. A distinction was then made
between the curriculum technologist who was concerned
primarily with the gpap question of education, or the
problem of ascertaining gpap objectives to prescribe,
and then how to describe them; and the instructional
technologist who was concerned primarily with the pp!
question of education, that is, the validation of instruc-
tion using educational objectives as criteria. Thus the
curriculum technolOgist is in the position of working
toward prescribed and explicitly stated objectives using
relevance as a criteria, while the instructional tech-
nologist is concerned more with the validation of
instruction and must therefore begin with prescribed

and explicit stated Objectives as givens.

Question 3

 

. "What is the role of the educational technologist
in helping to determine gpap objectives should be pre-
scribed and explicitly described?"

In exploring this question, it was found that the

early literature on curriculum, curriculum development

153

and evaluation, i.e. gpap objectives, tended to focus

on a simplistic model that assumed that the efforts of
the teacher and the pupil were the primary factors in the
achievement of any objectives, and that the evaluation of
the objectives was judged through the achievement of the
learner. Given the context of pre-designed instruction,
using "criterion-referenced" testing, it appeared to this
writer that the develOpment and evaluation of objectives
must take place prior to instruction. That is, ii
educational objectives are used as the criterion for
validating instructional practices, ppgp the educational
objectives must be first evaluated, independent of, and
prior to the instruction. This led to an analysis of the
question in three sections. First the role of the
technologist in policy formulation in general, next the
role of curriculum research, finally the role in cur-
riculum evaluation.

In the section on policy formulation, it was con-
cluded that the primary role of the curriculum technolo-
gist was to formalize the policy making process by pro-
viding technological tools for helping to determine the
objectives, and techniques for helping to make the
evaluating criteria explicit. To illustrate the role,
key concepts and critical points in the curriculum

development process were identified and selected tools and

15A

techniques available for use in the formalization of
the process were introduced.

In the other two sections, it was concluded that
the role of the curriculum technologist was primarily
concerned with evaluation and only secondarily with
research. To clarify this position, several distinctions
were made such as the distinctions between: research and
evaluation, formative and summative evaluation, and
finally, qualitative and quantitative evaluation. In
summary, the role of the curriculum technolOgist in help-
ing to determine gpap objectives should be prescribed and
explicitly described, is to provide tools for generating
potential objectives and make explicit criteria for

evaluating objectives, prior to instruction.

Question A

 

What is the role of the educational technologist
in helping to determine how the objectives prescribed
should be explicitly described?

An examination of the literature revealed that
despite the volumes of exhortative prose on the subject
of describing educational objectives, despite the criteria
offered as a basis for evaluating the description, despite
the insistence on clarity in the description of objectives,
there is much resistence, conflicting evaluations, and
generally more smokescreen than clear light in the super-

ficial responses to the question, "How should educational

155

objectives be described?" There are semantic problems
concerned with even such basic terms as behavior or
behavioral objectives. There are semantic problems
created by mixing contexts. There are difficulties due
to one's position in the conversation, as a speaker or
as a listener. It was therefore concluded that the role
of the educational technologist in helping to determine
how the objectives should be described, was first to
understand the general problem of description more
thoroughly.

The problem of the description of educational objec-
tives was then examined from the point of view of the
various dimensions mentioned by Bloom. In the analysis
of the dimension of form, it was concluded that both
behavior and content were necessary regardless of the level
of specificity. It was also concluded that the levels of
decision-making in the policy formulation effected the
degree of specificity required and advisable in the
description. It was also concluded however, that the
relationships between the levels was also a critical
aspect of the process and hence effected the description
problem. Finally, it was concluded that an organization
of objectives indicating both a description of the indi-
vidual objectives, and their relationship to each other
was perhaps the most appropriate format of description,
with the other dimensions being subset problems within the

organizational pattern.

156

General Conclusions

 

The general conclusion that pervades the entire
study is that there are two major problems which are
likely to permeate curriculum development for some time.
The first is theoretical or conceptual. The second is
methodological. The educational technologist must be
aware of both.

The theoretical or conceptual problem is concerned
with relating some small manageable study within some
larger frame of explanation. Most of the contributions
of curriculum research and evaluation studies have been
restricted in scope and limited in usefulness by the use
of a simplistic model which assumes that the efforts of
teachers and students are the prime causal factors in the
attainment of educational objectives. Educational
technologists have been restricted by the inability or
unwillingness to unravel two closely-lined, but separate
threads in most curriculum inquiry; the formulation and
use of educational objectives, and the systematic
arrangement of instructional stimuli.‘ Recent conceptual
differentiations between curriculum and instruction may
be a help in this direction. However, general theory and
conceptualization in curriculum (particularly when
considered in its restricted sense) appears to have

advanced very little during the last decade and is moving

157

only slowly at present. Curricular theory with
exploratory and predictive power is virtually non-
existent. The distinction between curriculum research

and curriculum evaluation has not yet been defined and
bounded. It has been noted in the literature, but on

the basis of terms used and definitions assigned, the
distinction of actual studies is nearly impossible. There
is no theoretic frame of reference as a guideline. Cur-
riculum researchers have not yet identified the gates
through which ideas pass nor what happens to them on the
way to the classroom. The model presented in this paper
is a conceptual device by which some of these gates may

be discovered. It is a heuristic device for both organiz-
ing some information gleaned from the literature, but also
for suggesting both further studies and how those studies
would relate to each other.

The model is not a new theory. A new theory ".
requires the reconstruction of prior thinking and the
reevaluation of prior fact, an intrinsically revolutionary
process that is seldom completed by a single man and never
overnight."1 The model was adapted and adopted from many
minds, and has not been considered more than a heuristic
device to organize some otherwise unorganized thoughts.

It is hOped that the model might stimulate some theoretical

 

1Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962),
p. 7.

 

 

158

thinking in others, for until some theory is developed
to direct further research in the evaluation of educa—
tional objectives, the educational technologist will find
himself in the role of applying highly precise methodolOgy
for instruction, based on mountains of empirical data, in
order to achieve highly specific objectives, which are
trivial and/or irrelevant. He will be like that man who
chose to look ". . . under a street lamp for a coin lost
in the forest--because the light is better there."2

The second continuing problem which was evident
throughout the study is methodology. Some of the prob-
lem is related to the lack of theoretical distinctions
already mentioned, but much of the problem of methodology
is caused by the fact that educational technologists and
curriculum researchers of the past and present have danced
to the tune played by psychological research methodology,
which in turn grew out of the fields of agronomy and
biology. The disparity between the characteristics of
agronomy, biology, psychology and education is slowly
becoming more clear to educational researchers. While old
methodologies are still suitable for their purposes, it

is becoming clear that differently designed studies seeking

 

2Edward c. Uliassi, quoted in Charles F. Hoban,
"Implications of Theory for Research and Implementation
in the New Educational Media," Theopy for the New Media
in Education, ed. by John M. Parsey (East Lansing, Mich.:
Educational Publication.Services, College of Education,
Michigan State University, August, 1968).

 

 

159

to explain or evaluate new phenomena must be developed
and used. If one is seeking to explain the nature of
what can reasonably be called "educational objectives,"
if one is concerned with where they are required, what
effects their formulation, how they should be described
or what effect they have on instruction, then it appears
necessary to both look around for new methodologies, and
to develOp or invent new ones where necessary. For the
educational technologist this means breaking out of the
psychology/education mold, and looking into business,
economics, philosophy and physics etc. for methodologies
that might be useful either directly or through trans-
lation. It means becoming the master of methodology not
the slave.

It is concluded that the problem should dictate
the methodology, not the methodology the problem. Any
review of the literature testifies to the popularity of
current curriculum research upon the p23 of education,
in preference to the gpap. Modern techniques and

methodologies for examining values, policy formulation and

 

planning are now available, although many more are
probably needed. The educational technologist, as a
spokesman for the application of science and scientific
method in education, must not only knowof these method-
ologies, but he must also become competent enough to use

them where they appear appropriate.

160

It is also concluded that it is valuable to dis-
tinguish between research and evaluation methodologies,
between formative and summative methodologies, qualitative
and quantitative methodologies, and finally correlational
ane experimental methodologies.

It is finally concluded that the educational tech-
nologist who eloquently urges classroom teachers to change
their practices, specify their objectives, use behavioral
terms, etc., may publish and receive the accolades of the
educational community, but the educational technologist
who practices what he preaches and provides a set of usable
curriculum materials for the students to interact with, is
much more likely to modify what in fact goes on in the
classroom and will have a much greater effect upon the

learning of students.

Recommendations

 

For Further Study

 

Several recommendations for further study of a
rather specific nature have already been suggested by the
model and will not be repeated here. There are however,
three broad areas in which it is felt further study is
needed. The first concerns the role of the educational
technologist. The second area is concerned with the
theoretical problems earlier mentioned, while the third

area is concerned with methodology.

161

At present, the educational technologist can be all
things to all people. He is a Jack of all trades, and a
master of some, but unless the various roles that he plays
become somewhat more specific and more clearly defined,
there can be a very wasteful dissipation of important
talents. It is therefore recommended that the distinction
between curriculum technologist and instructional tech-
nologist become more than a semantic plaything, and serious
study be taken of the appropriate roles of each. While it
is recognized that the very concept of technology in edu-
cation is relatively new and ill defined, it is felt that
it is necessary to look forward, make the additional dis-
tinction now, and proceed to clarify both roles.

Much further study is required in developing a
theory of curriculum development which includes not only
some of the traditional methodologies and the new concepts
of systems analysis, task analysis, etc. but which pro-
vides a frame of reference for formulating educational
objectives that will not only identify methodologies which
canbe useful, but also identify problems for which no
methodology presently known is satisfactory. A theoretical
framework that honestly treats the value problem, the policy
formulatiOn problem, the gpap problem, as a legitimate
area of scientific exploration and research, is required.

A model of the teaching-learning process that goes beyond

the classroom is necessary. Further study in the

162

theoretical area is recommended, but not anticipated in
the near future.

The third area for further study in the evaluation
of educational objectives is methodology. In such a com-
plex, generalized concept, the problems of analysis are
seen as crucial to the better understanding of the meaning,
use and nature of educational objectives. The technique
of factor analysis appears to hold great promise for
breaking down complex concpets such as educational objec-
tives. Far greater use of this class of methodology to
balance the experimental approach is therefore recommended

for further study.

For Implementation

 

Most studies conclude with the recommendation for
further studies, perhaps based upon the realization of
the inadequacies of the study just completed. While many
inadequacies are recognized, in this study, some of the
conclusions appear sound enough for the author to go
another step and make some recommendations for implementa—
tion of some of the findings. The major recommendation
is in the area of graduate training of educational
technologists. It is recommended that those in charge of
graduate training programs for educational technologist

do the following:

163

1. Provide greater training in evaluation metho-
dologies. It has already been pointed out that the con-
cepts and techniques that serve evaluation have roots in
a wide variety of subject matter fields such as philoso-
phy, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, history and
economics as well as psychology. Few graduate programs
today aim at training for evaluation competence in an
educational technologist. In contrast, many programs are
devoted to the training of testing-and-measurement
specialists (for norm—referenced testing) and of research-
design-and-analysis specialists (for discovering new
knowledge). The educational technologist when acting as
an evaluator, of either instruction or curriculum, must
have a tolerance for ambiguity and an ability to persevere
when working on unpleasant tasks. He must be a generalist
with a broad background to work with a variety of subject
fields, and yet have skill in devising techniques and con-
structing instruments idiosyncratic to the specific
evaluation tasks at hand. It seems apparent that the
tasks subsumed under the heading of evaluation as presented
in this paper are sufficiently complex to discourage any
expectation of producing a significant number of seasoned
specialists or generalists to meet existing and anticipated
needs. Nevertheless, it would seem logical that an
individual carrying the label of educational technologist

should have an awareness, if not total competence in the

16A

field of evaluation as it is presently developing, and
that any graduate program for educational technologists
should include courses on the concepts and techniques of
evaluation as an area of competence.

2. Provide greater training in the correlation and
factor analytic methodologies to balance the interest and
competence in experimental design and allied statistical
methodolOgies presently current in graduate training
programs.

3. Provide greater training in the policy formation
of objectives to balance the present overemphasis on
instructional uses of objectives.

A. Provide more Opportunity to actually develop
instructional packages from the beginning stages of policy
formulation, to the final validation stages in order to
experience the problems of educational objectives in all
their multiple forms, levels of specificity, uses and
organization. The twin disciplines of policy—making and
evaluation will each have a sobering effect on the other
and cause a revised estimate of the uSe and importance
of both.

Finally, for the practicing educational technologist,
one recommendation which comes through clearly after a
review of the literature concerning educational objectives

is: PRACTICE; DON'T PREACH. The discipline of practicing

 

what one preaches can have as much effect upon the

165

preaching as it can upon the practice. The effect of
technologists will be in the practice of technology,

not in the propaganda of technological slogans.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

166

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963.

 

Allport, Gordon W. "The Open System in Personality
Theory," Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral
Scientist. Edited by Walter Buckley. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1968.

 

 

Ammerman, Harry L., and Melching, William H. The
Derivation Analysis and Classification of—Instruc-
tional Objectives. Technical Report 66-H.
Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Office,
The George Washington University, May, 1966.

 

 

Ammons, Margaret. "An Empirical Study of Process and
Product in Curriculum Development." Journal of
Educational Research, LVII (196M), RSI-357.

 

 

Ashby, W. Ross. An Introduction to Cybernetics. New
York: Science Editions, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1963.

 

Ausubel, David P. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive
View. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

 

Baker, Eva Lee. "The Differential Effect of Behavioral
and Nonbehavioral Objectives Given to Teachers on
the Achievement of their Students." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertatibn, University of California, 1967.

Barson, John. Instructional Systems Development: A
Demonstration and Evaluation Project. Contract No.
OE-5-161025. East Lansing: Michigan State Univer-
sity, June, 1967.

 

 

Bauer, Raymond A. "The Study of Policy Formation: An
Introduction." The Study of PolicyFormatign.
Edited by Raymond A. Bauer and Kenneth J. Gergen.
New York: The Free Press, 1968.

 

, and Gergen, Kenneth J., eds. The Study of Policy
Formation. New York: The Free Press, 1968.

 

 

167

168

Bialek, Hilton M. "A Measure of Teacher's Perceptions of
Bloom's Educational Objectives." Paper presented
to the American Educational Research Association,
Presidio of Monterey, Calif., February, 1967.

Birkhoff, George D. "Mathematics of Aesthetics." Vol.
IV of The World of Mathematics. Edited by James R.
Newman. “D VOls. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1956, pp. 2185-2208.

 

Bloom, Benjamin 8., ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 1:
Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company,
Inc., 1956.

 

. Quality Control in Education." Tomorrow's
Teaching. Oklahoma City: Frontiers of Science
Foundation of Oklahoma, Inc., 1961.

 

"Some Theoretical Issues Relating to Educational
Evaluation." Educational Evaluation: New Roles,
New Means. The Sixty—Eighth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part
II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.

 

Bobbitt, Franklin. How to Make a Curriculum. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1923.

Boguslaw, Robert. The New Utopians. Englewood Cliffs,
. N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.

 

Borg, Walter R. Educational Research: An Introduction.
New York: David McKay Company, 1963.

Borton, Terry. "What Turns Kids On?" Saturday Review,
April 15, 1967, pp. 72-7“.

Bottenberg, R. A. and Ward, J. H. Jr. A lied Multi 1e
Linear Regression. PRL- TDR- 63- 6, EE- HIE I28.
Lackland AFB, Texas. Personnel Research Laboratory,
Aerospace Medical Division, March, 1963.

Boulding, Kenneth E. "General Systems Theory-~The Skeleton
of Science," Modern Systems Research for the
Behavioral Scientist. Edited by Walter Buckley.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1968.

 

Brameld, Theodore. "Changes in American Education in the
Next Decade: Some Predictions." Innovations in
Education. Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 196A.

 

169,

Bright, James R. Technological Forecasting for Industry
and Government: Methods of Application. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968.

 

Broudy, H. S. "Research and the Dogma of Behavioral
Objectives." Paper presented at Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Los
Angeles, 1969.

; Smith, Othanel B.; and Burnett, Joe R. Democracy
and Excellence in American Secondarnyducation.
New York: Rand, McNally, 196A.

 

 

Bruner, Jerome 8.; Goodnow, Jacqueline J.; and Austin,
George A. A Study of Thinking. New York:
Science Editions, Inc., 196?.

 

Burrell, D. B. "Obeying Rules and Following Instruction."
PhiloSOphy and Cybernetics. Edited by Frederick J.
Crosson and Kenneth M. Sayre. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1967.

 

Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult p§_Efficiency.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

 

 

Campbell, Vincent N. and Nichols, Daryl G. "Citizen
Objectives." Report No. AIR-E62-10/65-RP2, Palo
Alto, Calif: American Institute for Research,
1965.

Canfield, Albert. "A Rationale for Performance Objec-
tives," Audiovisual Instruction, XIII (February,

 

Carpenter, C. R. "A Constructive Critique of Educational
Technolo y." AV Communication Review, XVI (Spring,
1968), 1 —2u.

 

Charters, W. W. Curriculum Construction. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1923.

 

Christal, Raymond E. Selecting a Harem--and Other Appli-
cations of the Policy-Capturing Model. PRL-TR-67-1.
Lackland AFB, Texas: Personnel Research Laboratory,
Aerospace Medical Division, March, 1967.

Churchman, C. W. and Ackoff, R. L. "Purposive Behavior
and Cybernetics." Modern Systems Research for the
Behavioral Scientist. ,Edited by Walter Buckley.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1968.

 

170

Cook, Desmond L. Program Evaluation and Review Techniques.
OE-l202A. Cooperative Research Monograph No. 17.
Washington, D. C.: Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Crawford, Jack. "Inquiry and Reconstruction in the
Behavioral Sciences." The Contribution of Behavioral
Science to Instructional Technology. Monmouth,
Oregon: Teaching Research, 1968.

Craytor, Josephine K. "Critical Incident Technique,
Programed Instruction and Nursing Education." NSPI
Journal, VII (July, 1968), 12-15.

Davidson, Donald; McKinsey, J. C. C.: and Suppes, Pat.
"Outlines of a Formal Theory of Value." Philosophy
of Science, XXII (1955), 130-1A5.

 

 

Dressel, P. L. "Measurement and Evaluation of Instruc-
tional Objectives." Seventeenth Yearbook of the
National Council on Measurements Used in Education.
New York: N.C.M.C., 1960.

 

, and Mayhew, L. B. General Education: Explorations

 

in Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Education, 195“.

 

Drummond, William. Symposium held at the Association for
Student Teaching Conference, Chicago, February, 1969.

Edling, Jack V. "Introduction." The Contribution of
Behavioral Science to Instructional Technology.
Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research, 1968.

 

Eisner, Elliot W. "Educational Objectives: Help or
Hindrance?" School Review, LXXV (Autumn, 1967),
250-266.

 

"Instructional and Expressive Educational Objec-
tives: Their Formulation and Use in Curriculum."
Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, 1969.

Elam, Stanley, ed. ‘Education and the Structure of Knowl-
edge. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 196A.

Eriksson, B0. "A Systems Approach to Educational
Technology." Educational Technology, June, 1969,
pp. 62-69.

171

Flanagan, John C. "The Critical Incident Technique."
Psychological Bulletin, LI (July, 195A), 327-358.

 

"Functional Education for the Seventies."
Phi Delta Kappan, XLIX (September, 1967), 27-33.

 

Ford, G. W. and Pugno, Lawrence, eds. The Structure of
Knowledge and the Curriculum. Chicago: Rand McNally
and Company, 196“.

 

Frank, Lawrence K. "Science as a Communication Process."
Main Currents in Modern Thought, XXV (November-
December, 1968), h5-50.‘

 

French, Will and Associates. Behavioral Goals of General
Education in High School. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1957.

 

Furash, Edward E. "The Problem of Technology Transfer."
The Study_of Policy Formation. Edited by Raymond A.
Bauer and Kenneth J. Gergen. New York: The Free
Press, 1968.

 

Gagne, Robert M. The Conditions of Learning. New York:
Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

 

Gergen, Kenneth J. "Assessing the Leverage Points in the
Process of Policy Formation." The Study of Policy
Formation. Edited by Raymond A. Bauer and Kenneth
J. Gergen. New York: The Free Press, 1968.

 

 

. "Methodology in the Study of Policy Formation."
The Stugy of Policy Formation. Edited by Raymond A.
Bauer and Kenneth J. Gergen. New York: The Free
Press, 1968.

 

Gerlach, Vernon S. Describing Educational Outcomes.
Inglewood, Calif.: Southwest Regional Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development, 1967.

Gideonse, Hendrix D. "The Relative Impact of Instructional
Variables: The Policy Implications of Research."
Teachers College Record, LIX (1968), 625-6h0.

 

Gilbert, Thomas F. "Praxeonomy: A Systematic Approach to
Identifying Training Needs." Management of Personnel
Quarterly, VI (Fall, 1967), 20-33.

. "Some Issues in Mathematics. I. Saying What a
Subject Matter Is." NSPI Journal, VIII (February,
1969), “-190

 

172

Gorn, Saul. "The Computer and Information Sciences and
the Community of Disciplines." Behavioral Science,
XII (November, 1967), A33-A53.

 

Green, Edward J. "From Theory into Practice." Programed
Instruction in Medical Education. Edited by erome
Lysaught. Rochester, N.Y.: Rochester Clearing
House on Self-Instruction in Medical Education,
University of Rochester, 1965.

Guba, Egon. "Significant Differences." Educational
Researcher, SS (1969), A-5.

 

 

Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Harless, J. H. "Forum." NSPI Journal. VIII (April,

Helmer, géaf. Social Technology. New York: Basic Books,
19 .

Hemphill, John K. "The Relationship Between Research and
Evaluation Studies." Educational Evaluation: New
Roles, New Means. The Sixty-Eighth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part
IIé Chicago, Ill." The University of Chicago Press,
19 9.

 

Jackson, Philip W. and Belford, Elizabeth. "Educational
Objectives and the Joys of Teaching." School
Review, LXXIII (Autumn, 1965), 267-291.

Jastrow, J. "The Animus of Psychical Research." The Case
for and Against Psychial Belief. Edited by Carl
Murchison. Worchester, Mass.‘r Clark University
Press, 1927.

Johnson, Mauritz, Jr. "Definitions and Models in Cur-
riculum Theory." Educational Theory, XVII (Spring,
1967), 127-1uo.

Johnson, Wendell. People in Quandaries. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 19A6i

Kagan, Jerome. "His Struggle for Identity." Saturday
Review, December 7, 1968, pp. 80-88.

Katzell, R. A. "Industrial Psychology." Annual Review
of Psycholo . Edited by P. R. Farnsworth. Palo
Alto, Calif. Annual Reviews, Inc., 1957.

 

173

Kearney, Nolan C. Elementary School Objectives. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1953.

 

Kelvin, Lord (W. Thomson). Quoted in Fogel, Lawrence J.;
Owens, Alvin J.; and Walsh, Michael J. Artificial
Intelligence Through Simulated Environments. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

 

Kemeny, John G. "Mathematics without Numbers." Quantity
and Quality. Edited by Daniel Lerner. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961.

 

Klausner, Samuel Z. "Rationalism and Empiricism in
Studies of Behavior in Stressful Situations."
Behavioral Science, XI (September, 1966), 329-3A1.

Klir, J. and Valach, M. Cybernetic Modelling. Princeton:
-D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1967.

 

Kohler, Wolfgang. The Place of Value in'a World of Facts.
New York: Mentor Book, 1966.

Krathwohl, David R. "Stating Objectives Appropriately
for Program, for Curriculum, and for Instructional
Materials Development." Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, XVI (March, 1965), 83-92.

 

Bloom, Benjamin S.; and Masia, Bertram B.
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classifica-
tion of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective
Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 196A.

 

 

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

 

Lange, Phil C. "Technology, Learning and Instruction."
Audiovisual Instruction, XIII (March, 1968), 227-231.

 

Leeper, Robert R., ed. What are the Sources of the
Curriculum? A Symposium. Washington, D. C.: ASCD,
NEA, 1962.

 

 

Leontief, Wassily. "The Problem of Quality and Quantity
in Economics." Quantity and Quality. Edited by
Daniel Lerner. New York: The Free Press of
Glencoe, Inc., 1961.

Lerner, Daniel, ed. Quantity and Quality. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961.

17A

Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1951.

 

Lewis, Brian N. and Pask, Grodon. "The Theory and
Practice of Adaptive Teaching Systems." Teaching
Machines and Programed Learning, II Data and Direc-
tions. Edited by Robert Glaser. Washington, D.C.:
D‘AVH—I, NBA, 1965.

 

Lindvall, C. M., ed. Defining Educational Objectives.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
1964.

 

Lorge, I. "The Fundamental Nature of Measurement."
Educational Measurement. Edited by E. F. Lindquist.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education,
1950.

 

Lumsdaine, A. A. "Instruments and Media of Instruction."
Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited by N. L.
Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963.

 

Lysaught, Jerome, P. "Affective Learning and Self-
Instruction." NSPI Journal, VII (October, 1968),
A-6.

 

Macdonald, James B. "Researching Curriculum Output:
The Use of a General Systems Theory to Identify
Appropriate Curriculum Outputs and Research
Hypotheses." Paper presented at the AERA Meeting,
February, 1965.

Mackenzie, Gordon N. "Sources and Process in Curriculum
Development." What are the Sources of the Curriculum?
A Symposium. Edited by Robert R. Leeper. Washington,
D.C.: ASCD, NEA, 1962.

 

Mager, Robert F. Preparing Instructional Objectives.
Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1962.

. "Forum." NSPI Journal, VIII (March, 1969), 22.

 

Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon
Press, 196“.

Maruyama, Magoroh. "The Second Cybernetics: Deviation-
Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes." Modern Systems
Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Edited by
Waéger Buckley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company,
19 .

175

Merwin, Jack C. "Historical Review of Changing Concepts
of Evaluation." Educational Evaluation: New Roles,
New Means. The Sixty-Eighth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part
IIé Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
19 90 /

 

, and Womer, Frank B. "Evaluation in Assessing the
Progress of Education to Provide Bases of Public
Understanding and Public Policy." Educational
Evaluation: New Roles, New Means. The Sixty-
Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1969.

 

Miller, David W. and Starr, Martin K. The Structure of
Human Decisions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1967.

 

Miller, Elwood. "A Descriptive Study, Evaluation and
Analysis of Instructional Systems Development
Activities in Selected Departments at Michigan
State University During the Period, 1960 to 1963."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, College of Education, 1965.

Miller, J. G. "Living Systems: Basic Concepts."
Behavioral Science, X (June, 1965), 193-237.

Miller, Robert B. A Method of Man-Machine Task Analysis.
Technical Report 53-137. Wright-Patterson AFB,
Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, June, 1953.

Morrill, Charles S. "Setting Programmed Instruction
Objectives Using Systems Methodology." Trends in
Programmed Instruction. Edited by G. D. Ofiesh and
W. C. Meierhenry. Washington: National Education
Association, 1964.

Morse, Philip M. and Kimball, George E. Methods of
Operations Research. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1951.

Newman, James R. "Commentary on the Founder of Psycho-
physics." The World of Mathematics, Vol. II. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1956.

Oettinger, Anthony G. "The Myths of Educational
Technology." Saturday Review, May 18, 1968, pp.
76-91.

176

Patchen, Martin. "Decision Theory in the Study of
National Action: Problems and Proposal."
Journal of Conflict Resolution, June, 1965.

 

Paulson, C. F. "Specifying Behavioral Objectives."
National Research Training Institute Manual.
Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research, 1967.

Phenix, Philip H. "The Architectonics of Knowledge."
Education and the Structure of Knowledge. Edited
by Stanley Elam. Chicago: Rand McNally and
Company, 196”.

 

Piaget, Jean. Le Structuralisme. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1968.

 

. Six Psychological Studies. New York: Random
House, 1967.

 

Plowden, Bridget. Children and Their Primary Schools:
A Report of the Central Advisory Council for Educa-
tion. London: Her Magesty's Stationery Office,
1957.

Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966.

 

 

 

Popham, W. J.; Atkin, J. M.; and Raths, J. "The
Instructional Objectives Controversy." Symposium,
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, February, 1968.

 

Rapoport, Anatol. Operational Philosophy. New York:
Harpers and Brothers, 1953.

 

Richards, 1. A. Speculative Instruments. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1955.

 

. Design for Escape: World Education Through
Modern Media. New York:_ Harcourt, Brace and
World, Inc., 1968. ~

 

Rosenblueth, A. and Wiener, N. "The Role of Models in
Science." Philosophy of Science, XII (19A5), 320.

Rosove, Perry E. The Use of Contextual Mapping to
Support Long-Range Educational Policy Makigg. SP-3026.
Santa Monica, Calif." Systems Development Corp.,
1“ December, 1967.

177

Royce, Joseph R. The Encapsulated Man. Princeton:
D. Van Norstrand Company, Inc., 196“.

 

Rudner, Richard S. "Structure and Function of Scientific
Theories." Theory for the New Media in Education.
Edited by John M. Parsey. East Lansing, Mich."
Educational Publication Services, College of
Education, Michigan State University, 1968.

 

Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. New York: Barnes
and Noble, 1939.

 

Schalock, H. D. "Measurement." National Research
Training Institute Manual. Monmouth, Oregon:
Teaching Research, 1967.

 

 

. "Learner Outcomes, Learning Processes, and the
Conditions of Learning." The Contribution of
Behavioral Science to Instructional Technology.
Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research, 1968.

 

 

Scheffler, Israel. The Language of Education.
Springfield, Ill."' Charles C. Thomas, Publisher,
1960.

 

. The Conditions of Knowledge. Glenview, 111.:
Scott, Foresman, 1965.

 

Scriven, Michael. "Methodology of Evaluation." American
Educational Research Association Monograph Series on
Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1967.

 

Senate Bill No. 1. State of California, 1969.

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar.

 

Shayon, Robert Lewis. "The Communications Gap in the
Classroom." Audiovisual Instruction, VI (June,
1961), 2uu-250.

Silvern, Leonard C. Systems Engineering of Education I:
The Evolution of Systems Thinking in Education.
Los Angeles: Education and Training Consultants
Co., 1965.

"SCRIBE . . . A Project to Change the Teaching
Behavior of Academic Instructors in a High School
District." Los Angeles, Calif.: Education and
Training Consultants Co., 1967.

178

. Systems Engineering of Education VIII:
General System Model for Effective Curriculums.
Los Angeles, Calif.: Education and Training
Consultants Co., 1969.

 

 

Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York:
The Free Press, 1957.

 

Simpson, Ray H. Improving Teaching-Learning Process.
New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1953.

 

 

Skinner, B. F. "The Science of Learning and the Art of
Teaching." Teaching Machines and Programmed ,
Learning. Edited by A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser.
Washington, D.C.: DAVI, NEA, 1960.

Smith, E. R.; Tyler, R. W.; and the Evaluation Staff.
Appraising and Recording Student Progress. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 19A2.

Soltis, Jonas F. An Introduction to the Analysis of
Educational Concepts. New York: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1968.

 

 

Stake, Robert E., and Denny, Terry. "Needed Concepts and
Techniques for Utilizing More Fully the Potential of
Evaluation." Educational Evaluation: New Roles,

New Means. The Sixty-Eighth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part
II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969.

 

Stevens, S. S. "Mathematics, Measurement and Psycho-
physics." Handbook of Experimental Psychology.
Edited by S. S. Stevens. New York: Wiley, 1951.

Taylor, Walter. Quoted in Florence R. Kluckholn.
"Variations in Value Orientations as a Factor in
Educational Planning." Behavioral Science Frontiers
in Education. Edited by Eli M. Bower and William
G. Hollister. New York: John Wiley and Sons,

Inc., 1967.

 

Thorndike, R. L. Personnel Selection: Test and Measure-
ment Methods. New York: Wiley, 1949.

 

Tobias, Sigmund. "Lack of Knowledge and Fear of Auto-
mation as Factors in Teachers Attitudes Toward
Programmed Instruction and Other Media." AX
Communication Review, XIV (1966), 99-109.

179

Trzebiatowski, Greg. "An Evaluation of the Instructional
Systems Approach in Higher Education." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
College of Education, 1967.

Tyler, Ralph W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1950.

 

. Analysis of the Purpose, Patterni Score and
Structure of the Officer Education Program of Air
University. OERL Technical Memorandum 55-56.
Alabama: Maxwell Air Force Base, Officer Educa—
tional Research Laboratory, May, 1955.

 

. "Some Persistent Questions on the Defining of
Objectives." DefiningyEducational Objectives.
Edited by C. M. Lindvall. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964.

Uliassi, Edward C. Quoted in Charles F. Hoban. "Implica-
tions for Theory for Research and Implementation in
the New Educational Media." Theory for the New Media
in Education. Edited by John M. Parsey. East
Lansing, Mich.: Educational Publication Services
College of Education, Michigan State University,
August, 1968.

 

Vickers, Sir Geoffrey. The Art of Judgment. New York:
Basic Books, 1965.

 

Walbesser, Henry H. Constructing Behavioral Objectives.
College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland,
1968.

Walker, Decker F. "A Study of Types of Goal Statements
and Their Uses in a Curriculum Development Project."
Paper Presented at Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Los Angeles,
February, 1969.

Watson, John B. Behaviorism. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1930.

 

Weaver, Richard M. "Concealed Rhetoric in Scientific
Sociology." Scientism and Values. Edited by
Helmut Schoeck and James W. Wiggins. Princeton,
N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960.

180

Weisner, Jerome B. "Technology and Innovation."
Technological Innovation and Society. Edited by
Dean Morse and Aaron Warner. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1966. '

 

Werkmeister, W. H. The Basis and Structure of Knowledge.
New York: Harper and Row, 19MB.

 

Whitehead, Alfred N. Science and the Modern World.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925.

 

. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Macmillan
Company, 1933.

 

Whitlock, Gerald H. The Status of Morale Measurement,
1959. WADD-TN-60-l36. Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas: Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Deve10p-
ment Division, May, 1960.

 

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought and Reality.
New York: John Wiley,-l956.

 

Wiener, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings.
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1954.

 

Winthrop, Henry. "The Archetypes of Human Concern."
Systematics. III (March. 1966), 33A-360.

 

Wilkins, Leslie T. "A Behavioral Theory of Drug Taking."
Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral
Scientist. Edited by Walter Buckley. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1968.

 

Zipf, George. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least
Effort. Reprint. New York: Hafner Publishing
Company, 1965.

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
IIHIWHHHIIIWIWIWIIHIIWWHIHWHIIHIWI
31293102306820