Objectives, Learning Outcomes and Standards

Learning within a school environment is typically goal directed. Students are at school because they want to learn certain things, attain specific standards, and perhaps satisfy the requirements for a particular diploma or award. The majority of students are not there, as described mischievously by Postman and Weingartner (1987), to serve out a sentence! Teachers, too, are not serving ‘time’ in schools but are wanting their students to achieve particular goals or ends.

Objectives provide an answer to what it is that students want to learn and what it is that teachers are trying to teach them. There are many other terms that are used as synonyms, such as ‘outcomes’, ‘goals’, ‘aims’, ‘purpose’, ‘intentions’. Some authors, such as Moore (2001) and Glatthorn and Jailall (2000), make distinctions between some of these terms but, based upon widespread use and application, the major terms are undoubtedly ‘objectives’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘standards’.

Objectives

Objectives greatly assist the planning process for teachers. The foundation for well-planned teaching is, unquestionably, clearly stated objectives. Some teachers resist using objectives because they consider they are too limiting or are inappropriate for certain content that cannot be specifically defined or evaluated. Yet measurement experts such as Mager (1984) point out that ‘if you are teaching things that cannot be evaluated, you are in the awkward position of being unable to demonstrate that you are teaching anything at all. Intangibles are often intangible because we have been too lazy to think about what it is we want students to be able to do’ (p. 5).

In terms of the teaching role, objectives provide the opportunity for teachers to formulate and, it is hoped, act upon, clear statements about what students are intended to learn through instruction. We are probably all aware of anecdotes which refer to the guessing games which can occur between a teacher and students. For example: What does our teacher want us to learn? I don’t know what he/she wants. Is it to memorize/regurgitate certain content or is it to apply and explain certain content? Objectives, if conveyed to students,  can eradicate a lot of these misunderstandings and can lead to a higher level of communication between the teacher and students.

Objectives are also likely to lead to higher levels of achievement by students, but only under certain conditions. For example, objectives can lead to better learning in lessons which are loosely structured, such as research projects or a film. However, for lessons which involve very structured materials, such as a tightly sequenced laboratory experiment or a computer program, objectives seem to be less important (Tobias and Duchastel, 1974). Objectives assist teachers and students to focus upon what will be evaluated. There should be a close relationship between the assignments, tests and checklists used by the teacher and the objectives for the particular teaching unit or lessons. The feedback received by students from particular assessments lets them know whether they are achieving the standards required.

Outcomes

Willis and Kissane (1997) define outcome statements as ‘broad descriptions of student competencies which reflect long term learning of significance beyond school, and which are superordinate to the details of any particular curriculum content, sequence or pedagogy’ (p. 21).

Outcome statements concentrate upon the outputs rather than the inputs of teaching. Exponents of this approach argue that objectives only concentrate upon the inputs of teaching.

To a certain extent, the approach represents a recycling of earlier movements, especially in the USA, such as mastery learning and competency-based education. Yet, it does not incorporate specific behavioural statements. Rather, the emphasis is upon broad outcome statements to be achieved, eight to twelve statements per learning area (which typically comprises several teaching subjects).

A very successful and leading exponent of outcome-based education in the USA has been William Spady. According to Spady (1993) ‘Outcome-based education’ means focusing and organizing a school’s entire programme and instructional efforts around the clearly defined outcomes we want all students to demonstrate when they leave school (p. ii).

That is, the intended learning results are the start-up points in defining the system (Hansen, 1989). A set of conditions are described that characterize real life and these are used to derive a set of culminatory role performances. Students are required to provide a culminating demonstration – the focus is upon competence as well as content but not on the time needed to reach this standard. Specifically, an outcome is an actual demonstration in an authentic context (Spady, 1993, p. 4).

Moore (2001) notes that in the USA there have been many versions of outcome-based education (OBE) but all of them promote system-level change –  ‘observable, measurable outcomes; and the belief that all students can learn’ (p. 98).

This may have been their major attraction and the cause for their demise; they promised far-reaching reform but could not deliver. Some states within the USA were enthusiastic about OBE at first, such as the Pennsylvania Department of Education which recommended it be used throughout the state (Glatthorn and Jailall, 2000). However, by the mid- 1990s OBE was being widely criticized in terms of:

(a) its over emphasis on outcomes rather than processes;

(b) schools inflicting values that conflicted with parental values;

(c) lack of hard evidence that OBE worked;

(d) fears that OBE would ‘dumb-down’ the curriculum and lead to lower standards;

(e) concerns that content becomes subservient under an OBE approach;

(f) student outcome statements being difficult and expensive to assess.

As a result, OBE in the USA rapidly declined in the 1990s to be overtaken by standards-based (content standards) and constructivist approaches (Glatthorn and Jailall, 2000).

Standards

The raising of educational standards is a constant cry in educational reform. In the USA there was a major impetus in the 1990s to create ‘unified national standards that would ensure consistent delivery and outcomes across diverse state systems and districts via the Educate America Act, 1994’ (Blyth, 2002, p. 7). Knowledge experts in the various subject fields have produced standards for their respective subjects. These standards have been taken up by individual states in the USA and incorporated into state curriculum frameworks and mastery tests. According to Arends (2000) ‘state frameworks have an important influence on what is taught in schools because mastery tests are usually built around the performance standards identified in the frameworks’ (p. 52).

A distinction needs to be made between content and performance standards. Content standards declare knowledge to be acquired, whether it is processes or content. Performance standards are tasks to be completed by a student where the knowledge is embedded in the task and where a student has to use the knowledge and skills in a certain way.

Marzano and Kendall (1996) contend that both content and performance standards need to be used. Further, they suggest that the content standards are articulated at a general level but with specific subcomponents at developmental levels or ‘benchmarks’. As noted by Blyth (2002) ‘benchmarks are essential in describing the developmental components of the general domain identified by a standard.’

Standards seem to be welcomed by many teachers and citizens . Various writers extol the virtues of the new standards – they are a better way to develop conceptual understanding and reasoning (Goldsmith and Mark, 1999). Rosenholtz (1991) asserts that standards provides a common focus, clarifies understanding, accelerates communication and promotes persistence and collective purpose. Yet, other educators are more cautious. Schmoker and Marzano (1999) raise the question, will the standards movement endure? They contend that educators have to be very disciplined about writing clear standards and for the standards to be limited in number. Moore (2001) notes that the standards must be carefully linked to assessment. Glatthorn and Jailall (2000) assert that many of the standards are too vague about content.

The Relative Merits of Objectives, Outcomes and Standards

In the 1970s, various educators criticized what they perceived to be undue attention being devoted to objectives in teaching, and especially behavioural objectives. For example, Eisner (1979, p. 103) developed the term expressive objective and later expressive outcome to demonstrate that not all teaching requires the same degree of certainty.

It is evident that outcome statements together with pointers and work samples do provide considerable guidance for teachers about the standard required in a specific subject or learning area. Whether they are a better planning mechanism than objectives is problematic – there is insufficient empirical evidence available to be categoric about this matter (Ellis and Fouts, 1993). All that we can list at this time are the possible advantages:

 they are more explicit statements about what students should be able to do;

they allow teachers more flexibility in planning their teaching;

there is less emphasis upon content to be covered and more emphasis upon skills/competencies to be achieved;

they provide more concrete details about student performance for parents;

they will enable teachers and school principals to be more accountable about student standards;

they can address higher-order thinking skills;

they acknowledge differing learning styles and forms of intelligence.

It should be emphasized that none of these purported advantages has been substantiated in the research literature. Further, educators are still searching for solutions to some major problems such as the following.  Enormous workloads for teachers (especially primary school teachers) to assess students on outcome statements even when using special computer software such as KIDMAP.

Providing sufficient professional development training for teachers on the outcomes-based approach. Teachers need substantial training to arrive at a shared commitment to the achievement of a common set of outcome statements (Griffin, 1998).  Developing outcome statements (and pointers) which are meaningful  and assessable. It cannot be assumed that all teachers will interpret them in the same way (Willis and Kissane, 1997).  Developing an economical system to monitor whether the outcomes have been achieved or not (Brady, 1996).  Obtaining evidence that an outcomes approach will lead to improved learning (Darling-Hammond, 1994).

Educators reacting to the national profiles in Australia have also been critical of attempts to specify in advance the outcome levels for students. Collins (1994a, p. 14) concludes that the ‘profiles are just, quite literally, cultural artefacts . . . the levels do not mark a necessary ordering of any developmental sequence (more accurately, we have no evidence that they do), but are simply a setting out of particular, and likely to change, majority cultural patterns.’

It can also be argued that objectives share many of the advantages listed for outcomes without incurring the disadvantages. For example, objectives enable teachers and students to focus upon major concepts, they can be communicated easily to parents and students and they enable assessment procedures to be directly related to the objectives. Furthermore, objectives do not have some of the inherent weaknesses of outcome statements in that there are no assumptions about developmental/growth levels or necessity for semi arbitrary areas of knowledge to be divided into strands.

Types of Objectives

Objectives can range from the general to the highly specific. It can be argued that the two extremes have relatively little impact upon teachers. General  abstract statements about such affairs as intellectual development or citizenship provide little insight for the teacher. On the other hand, objectives that are so tightly focused that they concentrate upon low-level, insignificant facts or processes are also of very limited use to teachers.

Behavioural Objectives

Behavioural objectives are perceived by some educators to be at a middle position between these two extremes. These objectives focus upon observable and measurable changes in students. Typically, adherents of behavioural objectives require three criteria to be met, namely: evidence of achievement, conditions of performance and acceptable levels of performance.

Evidence of Achievement

The performance by learners must be stated as an observable student behaviour. Hence it is suggested that teachers should use terms which are observable, such as:

 List

 Define

 Add

 Calculate

 Demonstrate

Example: Students will list the states and territories of Australia. Conditions of Performance This criterion requires that the important conditions under which the behaviour is expected to occur must also be specified.

Example: Using a compass and a ruler, construct two tangents to a circle of 6cm diameter from an external point 12cm from the circle centre.

Acceptable Levels of Performance

It is also necessary to state the minimum acceptable levels of performance, or in other words, the criterion for success. It defines the desired performance and may be expressed in terms of speed (amount of time taken), accuracy or quality. 

Example: Students must spell accurately 90% of the 15 words presented. By combining these three criteria, we get detailed behavioural objectives which can be readily observed and measured.

Example: Students will match up accurately 90% of the rivers listed with their location in states of Australia without using their workbooks.

Instructional Objectives

A case can be made for instructional objectives (behavioural or non-behavioural) to be used by teachers to assist with the instructional process. They provide a clearer direction and overcome vague ideas that might not have been fully developed. Further, they assist the teacher in selecting appropriate content, teaching strategies, resources and assessment. Having instructional objectives can also assist the teacher in demonstrating accountability to the principal, to parents, and to the head office education system personnel (Cohen et al., 1998).

For each major unit of instruction it is reasonable and useful for a teacher to develop a number of instructional objectives – for example, two to six. Of course, the teacher will have help in formulating objectives – help from national and state, governmental and professional, local district and school resources. And these objectives should be statements of the major purposes to guide the teacher and the student through the curriculum. As noted earlier, objectives can act like a road map. A road map need not specify every town and creek to be useful. Likewise objectives for a unit of instruction need not specify every change in student behaviour.

Without following the strict criteria described above for behavioural objectives, there are some criteria which enable teachers and curriculum developers to produce effective instructional objectives. These include:

scope: the objectives must be sufficiently broad to include all desirable outcomes, presumably relating to knowledge, skills and values;

consistency: the objectives should be consistent with each other and reflect a similar value orientation;

suitability: the objectives should be relevant and suitable for students at particular grade levels;

validity: the objectives should reflect and state what we want them to mean;

feasibility: the objectives should be attainable by all students;

specificity: the objectives should avoid ambiguity and be phrased precisely.

To follow each of these criteria closely would be an exacting task. Nevertheless, it is important to keep them in mind when devising appropriate instructional objectives.

Classifying Objectives

During the 1970s experts in educational evaluation, led in particular by Benjamin Bloom, began exploring the possibility of classifying objectives in terms of cognitive, affective and psychomotor behaviours. Cognitive objectives deal with intellectual processes such as knowing, perceiving, recognizing and   reasoning. Affective objectives deal with feeling, emotion, appreciation and valuing. Psychomotor objectives deal with skilled ways of moving such as throwing a ball, dancing and handwriting. Of course, it is important to remember that in real life, behaviours from these three domains occur simultaneously. Notwithstanding, by focusing upon one domain at a time we can gain important insights about planning lessons.

To celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain (Bloom et al., 1956) notable educators in the United Stated produced critiques which were included in the volume edited by Anderson and Sosniak (1994). Some of the conclusions made by these authors are worth noting:

 Teacher educators at universities have used the Taxonomy to help teachers plan their lessons, prepare their tests and ask questions.  Teachers have made little use of the Taxonomy because it is too time consuming, it is not practical to spend time on the higher-order objectives (which takes away time from content), and it is too rational and complex.

 The Taxonomy concentrates upon categorizing and does not provide any guidance about how to translate these objectives into teaching programmes – as a result it has had limited impact.  The major enduring influence of the Taxonomy has been to convey the notion of higher- and lower-level cognitive behaviours.

 The Taxonomy has been used extensively by experts preparing tests.  Although the Taxonomy purports to be descriptive and neutral, it concentrates upon overt student behaviours only.  The Taxonomy has been a major focus for discussion in most countries of the world; it has forced educators to raise questions as to whether they have varied the cognitive level of tasks, exercises and examinations they propose, and whether they sufficiently stimulate their students to think.

Teachers undertake purposeful activities in schools. To give direction to what the teacher and students are doing involves the communication to all parties of particular intents. Over the decades, ‘objectives’ in their various forms have been used to communicate intent. ‘Outcomes’ and ‘standards’ are currently being highlighted as more user-friendly approaches to communicate intent. It is problematic whether their popularity will continue into the next decade (Glatthorn and Fontana, 2002).

Reflections and Issues

1. Instructional objectives can be powerful directives in the teaching process. Discuss.

2. Objectives appear to stand for an excessive interest in efficiency, an undue and misplaced zeal for things rather than process or experience. . . they seem to portray little heaps of knowledge, rather than an integrating structure or matrix. Critically analyse this statement.

3. To what extent is it possible in practice to devise outcomes for which all students can achieve satisfactory standards? Outline some of the possibilities and problems in achieving this end.

4. Compare and contrast the benefits of ‘behavioural’ objectives and ‘instructional’ objectives.

5. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of using an outcome-based and a standards-based approach to curriculum planning.

6. How are the standards established by central policy makers more desirable than the standards currently set by texts and high-status tests?