Who Should Select Objectives?

A perennial problem in teaching and learning pertains to who should determine objectives for instruction. Objectives need to be selected carefully so that relevant subject matter and skills are taught and learned. The time that pupils are in school is short. Most pupils attend for eight years of elementary and four years of secondary plus one school year of kindergarten. Each school year is basically nine months in duration. The author discusses issues related to who is best situated and prepared to select these objectives.

The Basics and Instructional Objectives

Advocates of the basics believe that there is a body of knowledge that all pupils should achieve. The body of knowledge represents essential content in English and literature, social studies, science, mathematics, art, music, and physical education. The first four academic disciplines mentioned are the big four and are conceived to receive major attention.

Academic specialists in their academic area of specialty need to help in choosing what is salient for pupils to learn. The agreed upon objectives should then be available for teachers to use as bench marks for instruction. Only the basics or essentials should be emphasized in instruction. Implications for stressing the basics in the curriculum are the following:

1. The basics can be identified and represent what are essential for pupils to learn.

2. Trivia is reduced in the curriculum.

3. Academic specialists outside the local classroom determine what pupils are to learn.

Questions that might be asked about the basics include the following:

1. How relevant can these learning be made for pupils, when they are externally selected by those removed from the classroom setting?

2. Should pupils be involved in choosing their own sequence in learning opportunities?

3. Is it possible to select and agree upon which are the basics (Ediger, 1995, 116-117)?

Higher Standards

There are many advocates of setting higher standards for pupils to achieve. They believe that objectives for pupils to achieve are too lax. The United States will then not remain competitive with other nations in the economic world. Thus, pupils need more challenge and to achieve more complex objectives than is presently the case. There are selected assumptions concerning setting higher standards for pupils to achieve (Ediger, 1998, 52).

1. Pupils can achieve at a level that the schools are not emphasizing.

2. Learners will not be ready for the work place if higher standards are not emphasized presently in the classroom setting.

3. Experts need to set high standards for pupils to achieve.

Questions that need to be asked concerning a higher standards philosophy of instruction might be the following:

1. How do individuals involved in setting higher standards for pupils to achieve have knowledge of how difficult the objectives should be for pupil achievement?

2. Does higher academic achievement in school make for better workers later as adults at the work place?

3. Will teaching and education improve with pupils being required to achieve higher standards?

Constructivism and Objectives of Instruction

With constructivism, pupils are rather heavily involved, with teacher assistance, in determining objectives, learning opportunities, and evaluation procedures (Ediger, 1998, 24). Pupils and teachers, according to constructivism, are in the best position to determine the curriculum, not outsiders who decide upon higher standards for pupils to achieve, nor those who determine the basics (Ediger, 1995).

Pupils with teacher assistance also are in the best position to determine sequence in the curriculum. It is the pupil who must experience sequence. The focal point is the pupil when the philosophy of constructivism is emphasized in ongoing lessons and units of study. Pupils with teacher assistance evaluate the former's progress in context, not in test results outside the framework of present time situations (Ediger, 1997, 18-38).

Portfolios, not testing, might be the major way of appraising learner progress. Here, pupil work is selected and placed into his/her portfolio. These items might include:

1. written products of pupils.

2. artistic endeavors.

3. construction projects.

4. videotapes of committee work.

5. diary entries and journal writing by the pupil.

Each of the above should relate to objectives of instruction emphasized in teaching and learning.

Assumptions pertaining to constructivism are the following:

1. The pupil needs to have much input into selecting objectives, learning opportunities, and evaluation procedures in sequencing instruction.

2. The teacher is a guide and stimulator, not a lecturer nor a dispenser of information.

3. Portfolios may be the major approaches used to appraise learner progress (Ediger, 1998, 355-376).

Questions that might be raised of constructivist thinking in teaching pupils might be the following.

1. Should pupils and the teacher have much responsibility in deciding what should be taught, as compared to external groups such as state departments of education being responsible for writing objectives in the use of state mandated tests?

2. How should portfolios be appraised when appraisal procedures used would differ greatly from testing to determine pupil achievement? Will pupils achieve basic subject matter in a pupil centered curriculum?

Conclusion

Who is in the best position to select objectives for instruction? The advocates of the basics in the curriculum believe that there is an essential body of subject matter that all pupils must achieve. These basic learnings are important now and also for the future. The advocates of high standards believe that teachers have been too lax in selecting challenging, complex objectives for learner attainment. Advocates of constructivism believe that the pupil with teacher assistance should be heavily involved in the selecting of objectives. Questions that need to be addressed include the following:

1. Might these three kinds of objectives be integrated so that pupils may work to achieve objectives which represent the basics, are complex, and yet selected by learners?

2. Should each of the three kinds of objectives be given its share of attention with a one-third emphasis on each kind in terms of time for instruction?

3. May new approaches be tried to come up with creative solutions in the choosing of objectives?

References

Ediger, Marlow (1998). Reading and Literature for Children. Virginia English Bulletin, 24.

Ediger, Marlow (1997-1998). Recent Issues in Education. The Philippine Education Quarterly, 3.

Ediger, Marlow (1995). Shared Leadership. Reading Improvement, Summer 1995, 116-117.

Ediger, Marlow (1998). The Principal of the School. Reading Improvement, 48, Spring, 1998.

Ediger, Marlow (1998). Philosophy of Teaching Mathematics. School Science, 52, March, 1998, published in India.

Ediger, Marlow (1997). Teaching Mathematics in the Elementary School. Kirksville, Missouri: Simpson Publishing Company, 18-38.

Ediger, Marlow (1998). Teaching Reading Successfully in the Elementary School. Kirksville, Missouri: Simpson Publishing Company, 355-576.

Dr. Marlow Ediger, Professor of Education, Truman State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Marlow Ediger, Route 2, Box 38. Kirksville, MO 63501.