Mager (1984) does a nice job at informing readers what an objective does. It is simple enough that people outside the field should be able to understand. Which is nice for when IDs go to work with SME's.
Mager states that a learning objective is what a learner should be able to do once finished with the training, in order to be competent. I think sometimes we forget about competence, and kind of make what we measure an objective to be more than just competence. So it is important to keep that in mind.
Additionally an objective is what the learner should be able to do when they are done. These are not the topics that the instructor teaches, but usually they go hand and hand. That is the good thing about objectives. They set standards, but each instructor has their own way of teaching that they are better at. So as long as the instructors methods meet the end outcome then they are being compliant.
So Mager also does a good job at describing the parts of an objective. The audience, the behavior (overt or covert), the condition, and the degree. I always have problems figuring out the the difference between the condition and the degree, because to me they go together. I always like to think of it as the learner will do this by doing this at this level. That usually snaps me back into separating the condition and the degree.
I also would like to note that as ID's we need to take out the ID language. When I first was designing a course I was trying to use the most fancy words from Bloom's Taxonomy, but no one besides the few that had master's degrees knew what I was saying.
Anyways I would have to say my one complaint of objectives rather than the article because I liked it a lot, would be if someone can meet the course objectives for instance, does that mean that they passed the class. If that is ultimately what we are testing on, if they can do all of those then they should pass the class. I think this is where education falls short. Students are getting graded on participation and attendance, but is this really helping measure the objectives?
The idea of having less ID language and more regular language is very important...kind of like a doctor coming into your hospital room and telling you what you have in weird latin words. I am one of those teachers that don't give grades based on attendance and participation because it doesn't show that they have met the state standards that I am graded on...with the exception being group projects...I don't want all students to get credit for one persons work.
ReplyDeleteHi Brittany,
ReplyDeleteI liked your perspective on the objectives - especially your points about the notion of competence and the criteria used to 'pass' a student.
Regarding competence, I think it's the connotation of the word itself that makes me stumble. In the non-IST world, it connotes adequacy and, as teachers, we generally want our learners/trainees to achieve mastery and excellence. The simplicity of Mager's objectives are a bit deceiving here. We can set whatever parameters we want as the designers - and as long as we specify the degree to which a learner needs to perform in order to have achieved the objective, learners can really be led to aim very high in their performance.
In language teaching, I have always been frustrated at the lack of rigour in expecting very high levels of performance in areas such as vocabulary knowledge and accuracy in speaking and/or writing. Research shows, for example, that in order to read a text 'fluently' we need to know at least 98% of the words. I always think of how I read the New Yorker or The Economist - in both cases, I need a dictionary by my side to make up that crucial 2%. In my opinion, 'competence' in a Mager objective for a language course should specify this criterion - 98% knowledge of target vocabulary - for learners. Otherwise, we are setting them up for inadequate, weak and often inaccurate reading and listening skills.
Regarding your point about participation and attendance, I strongly agree. Courses tend to be set up and paced to meet institutional needs (e.g. system-wide semester lengths, teachers' schedules, etc.) when we know that learners can and should proceed at their own pace. Participation and attendance are only viable objectives if they are skills that are integral to the course - e.g., for learners of time management, students being transitioned into a highly regulated environment (e.g. learning to be on time, be present mentally, etc.) from a highly unstructured environment. At my university in the UAE, students have to attend 90% of the classes. There is no correlation with attendance and success rates in language, and I have some learners who could pass the end of course assessment on day 3. This speaks to other institutional weak areas (such as placement in levels) as well as course requirements that you mention. It's tough as a teacher to justify these course elements when the bar is actually set low (70% mastery) for what I think are the essential knowledge and skill areas (vocabulary, reading fluency, etc.).
Great post - I appreciate your insights.