00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Contact Us

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A MODEL FOR GENERATING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FROM EDUCATIONAL GOALS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by IRVING WALTER TUNICK and RALPH ZISKIN June 1973 INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Z eeb Road Ann A rbor, Michigan 48106 I 73-31,399 TUNICK, Irving Walter, 1926- ZI SKIN, Ralph, 1916- A MODEL FOR GENERATING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FROM EDUCATIONAL GOALS. Both authors received degrees at University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1973 Education, theory and practice University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFIIMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date June.,... 1 9 . 7 . 3 ....................... Dean CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES................................... iv Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS DIMENSIONS.......... 1 The Problem Statement of the Problem Methodology Organization of the Study Chapter Summary II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE........ 20 Systems Analysis Evolution of Performance Objectives Accountability Projects Currently in Progress Development of Objectives Summary III. METHODOLOGY............................... 72 Tentative Conceptual Model A Statement of Educational Objectives for USDESEA Developmental Plan for the Study Model Construction Design of the Study Model Flowchart Summarizing Chapter III IV. THE STUDY MODEL: CONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS............................... 98 Construction of the Study Model Analysis of the Study Model V. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 113 Evaluation Summary REFERENCES........................................ 124 ii Page APPENDICES 13 3 APPENDIX A. Appendix to A Statement of Educational Objectives for USDESEA (SEO) ..................... 134 B. Activator’s Worksheet ............. 147 C. Outline of 145 Goals of Elementary School Education ......... 156 D. Outline of 145 Goals of Elementary School Education: A Series of 21 Charts......................... 152 E. Instrumentation of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives .......... 184 F. Elements of Performance Objectives....................... 188 G. Letter to Evaluators ........... 191 H. Information for Evaluating the Study Model....................... 194 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Six-step Problem-solving Model for Application to Education 2 2 2. The Transformational Process.............. 24 3. A Possible Relationship Between Current Tools for the Improvement of Education and Their Relationship With a Problem-solving Process and a Possible Model for Educational Management.............................. 44 4. Operational Model ............................ 47 5. Needs Assessment Component................ 48 6. Newport-Mesa Unified School District Levels of Refinement 5 2 7. Format for Composing Objectives ............. 69 8. Tentative Conceptual Model................ 74 9. Basic System Relationships................ 76 10. Flowchart for Summarizing Chapter III .... 97 11. An Objective-Generating Model ............... 100 12. An Objective-Generating Model: Stage I . . . 101 13. An Objective-Generating Model: Stage II. . . 102 iv CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS DIMENSIONS The Problem The rapid acceleration of change has had a pro found effect on all sectors of our society. As with other social agencies, the educational community has felt the impact of increasing expectations of students, taxpayers , and others involved in the educational experience. Against a backdrop of the dollar shrinking in purchasing power, services and programs required by the school's clients continued to increase both in number and complex ity. At the same time, taxpayers were demonstrating a more conservative attitude toward the provision of ever increasing financial support for the schools and they insisted that the tax dollar be used more effectively and efficiently. As a result of these conflicting demands, the schools were called upon to prove the value of their product— the progress of the students in their charge, and a new term, accountability, appeared on the educational scene. The response to the call for accountability focused on the use and evaluation of performance objec tives, and many school districts necessarily became 2 involved in the laborious and time-consuming process of producing viable lists of such objectives. An exploratory study to investigate a logical and systematic approach to the generation of performance objec tives from the basic educational philosophy of a school district appeared to be a worthwhile project. Background of the Problem The existence of widespread dissatisfaction with the failure of the schools to meet their responsibilities was evident across a broad spectrum of society. Unfavor able comment received wide coverage in the literature as well as in other media. The rising number of school drop outs and school bond issues that failed constituted unmis takable evidence of negative attitudes on the part of both students and taxpayers. In 1969, over 56 per cent of the dollar value of bond issues were not approved (Gallup, 19701 Critics, among whom were found both professional educators and respected laymen, raised probing questions concerning the inadequacies of many school programs and the lack of relevance in many school practices. Ianni (1969) identified a growing consensus that the traditional educational system was no longer responsive to the needs of a rapidly changing society. Critics of education are found in almost equal numbers inside and outside the educational establishment and on many sides of each educational issue . . . but we often find ourselves responding to demands instead of to evaluations, to denunciations rather than to al ternative programs [p. i]. Rogers (1969) raised several questions to clarify the challenges which he saw as more serious than any education had faced heretofore. Meeting these challenges, Rogers felt, would have implications for mankind’s very survival. Can education prepare people . . . to live comfortably in a world in which ever-accelerating change is the dominant theme? . . . Can education fulfill its central role in dealing with explosive racial tensions which are steadily growing? . . . Can education pre pare us to live responsibly in a world of increasingly irrational nationalisms? . . . Can education meet the growing student revolt against the impersonality of our institutions of learning? . . . against the im posed curricula? Can the educational system . . . come to grips with the real problems of life [p. vi]? Failure to serve effectively more than half the youth of high school age was laid at the door of the high school by Tyler (1968). Echoing Tyler's charge, Goodman (196 9) endorsed a statement made a century earlier by the social philosopher, Prince Kropotkin, who advised young people: "Ask what kind of world do you want to live in? What are you good at and want to work at to build that world? What do you need to know? Demand that your teachers teach you that Cp. 10 5]." The failure of the schools in ghetto areas was condemned by Clark (1969). Lessinger (1962) supported Clark’s stricture with a charge that many ghetto children have a vague, distorted view of life outside their narrow world and are prepared for nothing but another generation of failure. In his special message on educa tional reform, President Nixon (1970) stated: "For most of our citizens, the American educational system is among the most successful in the history of the world. But for a portion of our population, it has never delivered on its promises." In sharper words, Farber (1970) attacked schools "... where you let the dying society put its trip on you. . . . [Schools] exploit and enslave students; they petrify society; they make democracy unlikely [p. 17] The dissatisfaction of students was revealed In studies which showed that they perceived high school courses as having little relation to the real world and that the students regarded their lives as being of little concern to what was being done in the schools (Mallery, 1962). Postman and Weingartner (1971) suggested that teachers who are burdened by old knowledge and values en counter difficulty in helping students formulate their own meaningful life styles. In a poll of 100 high schools Life Magazine (1969 , p. 24-) reported that 50 per cent of the students were unhappy with their limited participation in school policy making, and over 6 0 per cent wanted more to say about curriculum decisions. Greater student participation was opposed, however, by 6 5 per cent of the teachers and 80 per cent of the parents polled. 5 A study by Stinchcombe (19 64) indicated that a major cause of student rebelliousness was the lack of correlation between the school's offerings and future job and study activities. Another study (House, 1970) found that, despite student dissatisfaction with school offer ings , they were vitally interested in relevant problems such as drugs, racism, poverty, sex, and war. These topics needed to be included in the curriculum rather than toughening existing programs. In answer to the question, "What do youth have to say?", Fleming (1969) reported sig nificant agreement around the desire to be respected, to be involved, and to learn something important. The efforts of the schools to answer charges made against them brought only additional criticism. According to Brick (19 70), "We are bombarded by charges of ambiva lence, appeals for change, glaring examples of management by default, and a rhetoric of lip service to reform . . . ." Demands for accountability emphasized these attacks on schools and school programs. "School administrators and school teachers alike are responsible for their perfor mance, and it is in their interest, as well as in the interests of their pupils, that they be held accountable [Nixon, 19 70]." Traditional acceptance of educational programs on the basis of their past performance and apparent but unsubstantiated merit is no longer the rule. The public has demanded that . . . schools demonstrate that the outcomes they are producing are worth the dollar investment provided . . . In short, what has been called for is a system of "educational accounta bility" [Alkin, 1972, p. l]. Need for the Research The conflict over perceptions of education among critics of the schools was matched by a similar conflict over educational goals and objectives found within a single school system or unit. Such conflicts were a natural outcome of the haphazard ways in which educational objectives continued to be adopted. Goodlad was cited as recognizing the need for a conceptual system to guide decision making by Klohr (1959), who then called for a "framework of theory or organized set of values [p. 49]" which might help to evaluate curriculum activities. Ten years later, Cronbach and Suppes (19 69) still deplored the general lack of research in educational philosophy, and they called for studies concerning educational goals and how they are determined and formulated. More specifically, Lessinger (1962) noted the need to define, in advance of its evaluation, exactly what a program was designed to accomplish and how the results might be tested. Oettinger (1969) supported this need when he warned against allowing "our human and material resources to be diverted into showy changes in form that will continue to block changes in substance [p. 61]." In addition, Kaufman (1970) pointed out that projects were often claimed to exhibit the systematic approach simply because the objectives were stated in pre cise measurable terms such as those suggested by Mager. Although objectives might be measurable and precise, they could still be trivial or even wrong. It was important that objectives not only be measurable but meaningful as well. Frequently, too, there was inconsistency between a school system's general educational goals and the more specific objectives taught in its classrooms. Taba (196 2) emphasized that this . . . inconsistency is especially bound to occur when one group in the school system is responsible for the development of the general framework of the curriculum and another for the generation of more specific curriculum plans. Under the circumstances, it is easy to forget that the specific aspects of the program are responsible for implementing the general objectives Up. 228]. At the same time, any attempt to relate goals and objectives logically should not be cause for overlooking criticism of the performance objectives movement by respected educators. MacDonald and Wolfson (1970) emphasized that the performance itself when viewed as a criterion of learning could prove to be deceptive. The overt behavior might meet expectations yet fail to be integrated or learned, or, conversely, the behavior might fail to be demonstrated although it had actually been learned. It seems clear that the instructional stimulus situa tion, as interpreted by the individual, can block 8 expected performance, arouse refusal to perform, or be of so little value to the learner that he does not want to bother about "showing" performance. In such cases, an interpretation about whether learning has occurred, based purely on performance, can be mis leading [p. 120]. Another area of discontent arose from the scaling down of broad concerns to pieces of subject matter in order to satisfy the pressures of evaluation. Although the supporters of performance objectives claimed that such objectives served to clarify broader goals, Polanyi (19 66) insisted that "it is impossible to represent the organizing principles of a higher level by the laws governing its isolated particulars [p. 36]." A higher level of function ing, e.g.,the ability to read, is not simply the sum of lower levels such as word recognition skills. Although reading is a higher-level function and dependent on word recognition skills, a lower-level function, it is more than the sum of those skills and has its own organizing power (MacDonald 8 Wolfson, 19 70). The existence of individual differences was another area where a conflict with the theory and practice of performance objectives appeared. The same study (MacDonald 8 Wolfson, 19 70) pointed out that different objectives could emerge from having different individuals in the class. For example, a class with both blacks and whites in it could derive contrasting interpretations from a study of the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War. Thus, what the teacher might select for emphasis could arise only from the interaction of the teacher, pupils, materials, and the dynamics of the activities in which they were engaged. The specific outcome could never be predetermined. In summary, Gies (1972) cautioned that the claimed effectiveness of performance objectives remains to be demonstrated. On the other hand, there was no proof that performance objectives did not lead to beneficial results. The research concerning the benefits of per formance objectives was contradictory with the uncertainty seen as due to design problems. At this time, the issue remained unresolved. Statement of the Problem Clearly, there was need to establish, within a single unifying framework, a systematic and logical relationship between educational theory and performance objectives with the latter providing the rationale for educational practice. Direct support for this concern was offered by Kimball (19 71) when he underlined the failure to develop a complete and consistent philosophical frame of reference. In short, some of the systems analysis techniques which the behavioral objectives proponents have been applying to selected disciplines must first be applied to the total educational effort of any school system. Unless this is done the limitations of an atomistic 10 approach will circumscribe our efforts [p. 497]. Walker, in an undated paper, supported this last statement by claiming that, in most efforts at curriculum development, the performance objectives formulated were either a diversion or an appendix to these efforts, and not an integral part of them. Glass (1972) noted that performance objectives statements often skirted the critical questions about the sources and priorities of objectives. Excessive attention was being given to pre cise goal specification, he felt, and insufficient attention to statements of priorities. The need for this study was pinpointed by Livingston (1970) when he wrote, "Due to the lack of an adequate model, there is a definite void between district goals and educational objectives used by the classroom teacher [p. 309]." Gies (1972) emphasized the same point by stressing that the clarifi cation of objectives could serve as a basis for many activities leading to the improvement of education. To achieve the desired clarity, some mechanism or technique for producing better objectives was needed. It was the purpose of this study to investigate whether a model could be developed which could generate performance objectives from broad, general goals. "A Statement of Educational Objectives for USDESEA" (United States, 19 71) was selected as the goal input of the study model. 11 Definition of Terms Generate. To produce performance objectives by using a model. Goal (goal statement). "A statement of broad direction or intent which is general and timeless and is not concerned with a particular achievement within a specified time period [Alameda County, 1972 , p. 45]." Goal indicator. "A statement describing the conditions of human behavior which support a goal or goal statement [Alameda County, 1972, p. 45]." Model. , : An abstract representation of reality which is used to describe, predict, and control the system it attempts to represent [Andrew S Moir, 1970, p. 30].” Performance objective (objective; behavioral objective; educational objective; educational outcome; instructional objective;learning outcome; measurable objective; operational objective). "A devised accomplish ment that can be verified within a given time and under specifiable conditions which, if attained, advances the system toward a corresponding goal [Alameda County, 197 2, p. 45]." Attention is directed to the use of the term "objective" in the educational literature, such as Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (19 56), where "objec tive" is used in its generic sense and includes goals. Objectives have been characterized according to 12 kind and level by Price (1972). The two kinds of objec tives are process and performance. Process objectives are synonymous, in general, to organizational objectives, al though they may also be classified as performance objec tives in the sense of being measurable. Levels of objec tives refer to objectives developed according to an admin istrative hierarchy, i.e., policy objectives (school board)*, program objectives (district administration); curricular objectives (district or school); instructional objectives (school department or teacher); learner objec tives, pupil objectives, or task objectives (learner). For the purposes of this study, however, no distinction was made among these classifications; the study model was planned to generate any type of performance objective. Philosophy. "A composite statement of the relationship between the individual and society based on beliefs, concepts, and attitudes from which the goals and objectives of the district are derived [Alameda County, 1972, p. 46]." SEP. An abbreviation for "A Statement of Educational Objectives for USDESEA," which contains USDESEA's philosophy and goals. The term "educational objective" corresponds to goal as defined above. 13 Study model. The proposed model envisioned in this study. Taxonomy (taxonomy of educational objectives). The term "taxonomy" refers to the classification of educa tional objectives as originated by Bloom (1956) in the cognitive domain, and extended by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964-) to the affective domain and by both Dave (undated) and Simpson (1966) to the psychomotor domain. USDESEA. An acronym for United States Dependents Schools, European Area. USDESEA is a government-sponsored school system which offers an educational program similar to that provided in many stateside schools. Its clients are dependent children of U. S. Government military and civilian employees stationed in the general European area. With the exception of locally-hired foreign language teachers who are citizens of the host country, the various school faculties are comprised of fully-certificated American teachers and administrators. Based on its function, organization, and curriculum, USDESEA is com parable to a stateside school district. Significance of the Study Success in achieving a generating model would have certain significant implications: 1. Performance objectives so generated would be relevant to the goals and goal indicators used in the 14 study model. Justification for using such objectives would thus be automatic and self-evident. 2. The emergence of objectives that might have been otherwise overlooked would demonstrate one of the benefits of the study model. 3. The existence of desirable objectives that the study model had failed to generate might indicate the necessity for a reexamination of USDESEA's philosophy and goals. 4. The techniques utilized in this study would have applicability beyond the parameters of this study for educational systems desiring to create and use a similar model to generate their own objectives. On the other hand, failure to attain the desired results would have other, but no less important, implica tions . 5. This study might serve as a point of depar ture in the development of a successful model by some other method of effecting the generation of objectives. 6. The ineffectiveness of the particular approach adopted for this study might suggest other approaches. 7. The inadequacy of SEO in providing the requisite goal characteristics to be used in the study model might serve as a point of departure for the formation of other more adequate goals and goal indicators. 15 8. Implications 5, 6, and 7 would lend signifi cance to this study as needed research under Fox's (1969) label of "productive failure [p. 337]." Barnes (1964) offered moral support for this position by suggesting that more was to be learned from reasons why some hypo thesis failed than might be learned from a supposedly successful study. Limitations 1. The goals and goal indicators drawn from SEO may not be suitable for transformation into the form re quired for processing by the study model. 2. The essential content of SEO1s goals or goal indicators may be altered or lost in the transformation process. 3. The study model may be partially successful; it may generate certain types of objectives and be un suitable for others. 4. SEO's goals and goal indicators may lack those elements which are essential to the process for generating objectives. 5. The techniques utilized in the study model for generating objectives may be inadequate to the task. 6. Weakness in any element of the study model could affect its total functioning. 7. The entire approach adopted for this study may be totally ineffective. 16 Constraints (Delimitations) 1. This study was delimited to the goals and goal indicators contained in SEO. A successful generating model, however, would have implications of generalizeabi- lity for other educational systems with their own goals and goal indicators. 2. This study was delimited to the development of the proposed study model including the procedures for processing SEO's goals and goal indicators. Assumptions 1. Performance objectives have intrinsic educa tional value. Although it was not the purpose of this study to evaluate performance objectives per se, it should be noted that their value and use were not universally accepted. 2. Because of their current impact on education, studies pertaining to any aspect of performance objectives were appropriate and justified. . . . many of our nation's educators became behavioral objectives enthusiasts. . . . The professional litera ture abounded with articles on objectives. A flood of books and filmstrips told how to state objectives behaviorally. "Behavioral" and "objectives" were, without challenge, the most persistent educational buzz words of the mid-sixties [Popham, 1972, p. 432]. 3. Model-generated objectives would not exhibit characteristics contrary to any dimension of the study model. 17 Any instrumentations used in the study model would actually perform their intended functions in the study model. Methodology The conceptual plan involved the following procedures: 1. Review the literature concerning (a) systems analysis and models, and (b) criteria for composing goals and objectives. 2. Interview when possible and correspond with personnel, school districts, and other educational organi zations involved with accountability and the performance objectives approach. 3. Reorganize SEO so that goals and objectives are stated in a format which would facilitate transforma tion by the study model. 4. Devise a study model based on pertinent ideas contained in 1, 2, and 3 above. 5. Submit the study model to a panel of evalu ators for comments and suggestions. 6. Revise the study model at every stage of conceptualization and development as feedback revealed areas of weakness. Organization of the Study The remainder of this study was organized as 18 follows: Chapter II contains a review of the related literature with reference to models, educational goals and objectives, and descriptions of several current pro jects in the area of accountability. Pertinent material from books, periodical articles, and published materials by educational organizations, as well as unpublished materials are included in this review. Chapter III discussed the procedures involved in the development of the study model. From a selected developmental plan, each component of the study model was described in detail. A preliminary study model was then constructed and submitted to a panel of evaluators. The comments and suggestions received from the panel were used to make needed changes and improvements in the study model. Chapter IV described the construction of the study model, and made an analysis of the study model in terms of its developmental plan, and the limits and con straints of the study. Chapter V evaluated the study with respect to the significant implications enumerated in Chapter I. Chapter Summary It was the purpose of this study to investigate whether a model which included "A Statement of Educational 19 Objectives for USDESEA" could generate performance objec tives. Many people have expressed the need for improving the effectiveness of educational organizations in provi ding opportunities for the growth of students. At the same time, taxpayers have given unmistakable signs of demands for efficiency on the part of the schools in uti lizing available funds. These two frequently expressed desires were the basis of the movement for increased accountability by the schools to the public. One portion of the overall approach to accounta bility was the establishment of performance objectives. The objectives, in turn, assisted the school system to achieve the goals which reflected the needs and desires of the students and the community. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Whereas research involving models and performance objectives was found in abundance, their use in combina tion remained relatively unexplored. In this chapter, the literature was reviewed to establish a base for building a model which could generate performance objectives. Of much value for the purposes of the study were Quade (1966), Andrew and Moir (19 70), Churchman, West, and Arnoff (1957), Rucker (1969), and Wishart (1971) in the area of model building, and Barro (1972), EPIC (1971, 1972a, 1972b), Metfessel, Michael, and Kirsner (1969), and the two Taxonomies of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl et al., 1964) in composing performance objec tives. The services of ERIC and DATRIX were utilized but relatively few references pertinent to this study were identified. Most of the significant writing about perfor mance objectives appeared after 1940. Models, on the other hand, are probably as old as civilization itself. In recent years, models have been used extensively in re search within the context of systems analysis, though mainly in fields outside of education. With the 20 21 increasing use of computer technology, however, the use of models in educational research has grown apace. Starting with the generic concept of systems and models, different types were examined as a prelude to creating a model appropriate for this study. Systems Analysis Systems analysis was defined by Quade (19B6) as a method of identifying a preferred choice among alterna tives. As such, systems analysis represents an approach to problems that involve choice under uncertainty. Im portant, too, is the capability of systems analysis to provide answers that can be critically evaluated by others and to have the entire process replicated. The system itself is a collection of elements and components (objects, persons, activities, etc.) that are readily identifiable and are united by some specifi able interaction so as to function as an organized whole. The entire operational system is viewed in the context of the environment within which it operates. The systems approach to solving problems sees all the components of a system as interrelated. Moreover, these interrelations among components can be understood best by looking at the system functioning as an organized whole (Andrew S Moir, 1970). 22 A similar viewpoint was expressed by Miller et al. (19 68) who described a system as . . . an orderly combination of interrelated and interacting parts which constitute a rational whole. Dynamically, the parts create a structural and func tional gestalt through purposive and collective effort. Each part contributes to the characteristic nature and effect of the whole by performing inde pendently and in interaction to achieve commonly accepted and specified objectives [p. 49]. Kaufman (1971) has suggested a six-step problem solving model which represents a systems approach to educational management problems. This approach used a closed loop, self-corrective process for proceeding from the problem to be identified to the desired outcome. (Revise as Required) V Identify _____a ____ Determine Select Determine Problem Solution Solution Implement Perfor (From N Require > Strate mance Needs) ments and J gies and J Effec Alterna Tools tiveness tives Fig. 1. A six-step problem-solving model for appli cation to education. (The six steps are identified, five within the boxes, and the sixth represented by the broken line which indicates revision as re quired by performance.) [p. 2 52]. Models A basic concept in systems analysis is the use of a model to present in one composite form the essential items and ideas required to solve a problem (Andrew 8 Moir, 23 19 70). Some . . . individuals can balance as many as five ideas at a time but most of us can keep only two or three intellectual balls in the air simultaneously. A model . . . steps up the number of ideas you can handle and eliminates the distraction of extraneous elements [Levenstein, 1965, p. 193]. Barro (19 72) underlined this particular aspect when he noted the value of models within the context of a program for planning and utilizing a school district's resources. By developing generalized models of its activities, a district could look at wide ranges of al ternatives rather than a few. Use of models in this manner gave assurance that the alternatives had been examined consistently. In constructing a model of reality within a conceptual system, the model is made to perform as if it were the system it represents while generating solutions to a problem (Van Dusseldorp, 1971). Often, the solution to a problem is achieved by using a model to reveal the gaps in information still to be filled (Levenstein, 1965). Theory of Model Building According to Quade (1966), the theory of model building requires that a system be described in terms of pertinent variables that are clearly understood. Moreover, the variables must be so defined that they are completely free from ambiguity and thus have the same meaning to all those concerned with the system. This requirement forces the creator of the model ". . .to make explicit what elements of a situation he is taking into consideration and in imposing upon him the discipline of clarifying the concepts he is using [p. 6].” according to their function as inputs or outputs. Input variables are not affected by the interactions of a system but they do affect the system. Output variables are determined by the interactions taking place within a system, and they are the attributes measured to determine the system's performance. In brief, the system transforms the inputs into outputs and how well this process is accomplished is a measure of the system’s performance. zation of a system. According to Andrew and Moir, this conceptualization is clarified through an understanding of the interactions among the model's inputs, as well as the relationships between these inputs and the model's out puts. Such interactions and relationships, called trans formations, change inputs into outputs as follows: Fig. 2. The Transformational Process [p. 38] Some of these interactions may involve human beings. At this time, the need for human interaction in Andrew and Moir (19 70) classified variables Models are used to aid the overall conceptuali Inputs X2—} TRANSFORMS x3-5 - > Y2 Outputs 25 education models is much greater than in more advanced systems where the techniques for the measurement of out puts are more adequate. Model Types Churchman et al. <195 7, p. 15 8) distinguished between three types of models: Iconic. An iconic model is a pictorial or visual representation of certain aspects of a system, e.g., a photograph or model airplane. This type of model is usually the simplest to conceive and the most specific and concrete. It is generally descriptive rather than explanatory. Analogue. An analogue uses one set of proper ties to represent some other set of properties possessed by the system being studied, e.g., the flow of water through pipes is analogous to the flow of electricity through wires. This type of model falls somewhere between the others in difficulty of conception and level of abstrac tion. Symbolic. A symbolic model uses symbols to designate properties of the system under study, e.g. , a mathematical equation, or set of equations. Of the three, this type of model is the most difficult to conceive, and is the most general and abstract. It is more often ex planatory than descriptive. 26 The study model was essentially an analogue for reasons supported by Churchman et al. An analogue model is capable of representing processes or systems and even many different processes of the same type. This capabi lity of the analogue model involves the representation of one set of properties by another set of properties. By transforming properties into analogous properties, the ability to make changes in the process or system under examination is increased. For the purposes of this study, the analogue was preferred to the symbolic model. Churchman et al. judged analogues to be more efficient when the system in volved is so complex that the amount of work required to construct a symbolic model is prohibitive. The complexity of the study model was envisioned in an open-ended list of goal elements being transformed into appropriate objective elements. Each objective element was seen as a selection from a separate open-ended list to form any one of a num ber of acceptable permutations. Havelock (1971, pp. 179-186) distinguished be tween models by describing three basic types as they relate to change processes: Social Interaction (SI). The social interaction model perceives the concurrence of change in the response of target systems to preexisting innovations. A change agent creates the awareness of a need for change, usually 27 by offering an innovation to the target. Examples of the SI model wo.uld be educational television and language laboratories. Research, Development and Diffusion (RDSD). This model perceives change as a complex process whereby educa tional needs and problems are identified by specialized change agencies. These agencies conduct basic research relevant to the need or problem, develop solutions or innovations, and disseminate or implement these products within target systems. An example of a RDSD model, the University of Pittsburgh's Individually Prescribed In struction (IPI), is described later in this chapter. Problem Solver (PS). This change process re quires the active involvement of the target system in finding and applying a solution to the system’s problems. Examples of the PS model would be local school district study councils and curriculum committees. Of Havelock's three model types, the problem solver model most closely resembled the study model. Allen and Seifman (19 71, p. 619) listed three characteristics of the PS model which were also envisioned in the study model: 1. Impetus for change occurs within the target systemCs). 2. A major part of the change effort must be created and directed by the target system(s). 28 3. Innovations will, in most cases, be used by only one target system. The basic problem of selecting appropriate objec tives remained. According to Quade (1966), a choice of the wrong objective could lead to a solution to the wrong problem. Finding an accurate answer to the wrong question was likely to be far less helpful than an incomplete answer to the right question. Evolution of Performance Objectives Scholarly concern about performance objectives has increased in most educational circles. This concern promised to become even more urgent as a result of two social changes under way in the late 196 0’s: (a) the development of computer technology in education (Andrew S Moir, 19 70) and (b) the growing concern over educational accountability (Nixon, 1970). As research efforts, performance objectives have been analyzed (Mager, 1962; Gerlach, 196 7; Gronlund, 1970), organized (Jenkins S Deno, 1970; Popham, 1970; Metfessel et al., 1969), utilized (IPI, as in Bolvin S Glaser, 196 8; PPBS, as in California State, undated), justified (Kimball, 1970; Popham, 1968), attacked (MacDonald & Wolfson, 1970), and defended (Popham, 1968). History of Objectives Curriculum theory since 190 0 became increasingly 29 concerned with the specification and clarification of ob jectives. However, examples of objectives, though general in nature, are found in both Greek and Roman education as well as in the stress placed by early Christian schools on a knowledge of Christianity. Herbert Spencer's writings, emphasizing the primary function of education as helping the individual to meet his basic needs, served to stimulate interest in the formulation of objectives. With the general acceptance of theories about mental discipline and faculty psychology, the study of objectives went into decline. However, studies after 19 00 in the field of educational psychology, such as those of Thorndike and Woodworth and the developments in measure ment, led to new efforts to determine objectives scienti fically. The procedures adopted were based on techniques developed by Bobbit, Bonser, and Charters around 1920. These procedures involved the categorization of human behavior into a few important classes followed by the breakdown of these categories into specific objectives. The origins of performance objectives, however, are usually traced from the operationalism of Percy Bridgman, whose The Logic of Modern Physics in 1927 called for scientific definitions in terms of measurable des criptive operations rather than dictionary synonyms. This concept was adopted by a group of psychologists who became known as operationalists,or behaviorists. Ralph Tyler 30 demonstrated this behaviorist influence in his work on the Eight-Year Study of Secondary Education for the Progressive Education Association when he emphasized the need to define educational objectives in terms of observed student be havior and curriculum content. Tyler continued to stress the importance of performance objectives in connection with his direction of the National Education Assessment Program. There have been numerous classifications of ob jectives. One of the earliest, issued in 1918, was the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education by the Commission on Reorganization of Secondary Education. A later example was Education for All American Youth issued by the Educational Policies Commission in 1944. In 1944, too, the concern for performance objectives received impetus from the report of the American Council on Educa tion, A Guide for General Education, which employed the term "performance” to define specific observable outcomes. These efforts to classify objectives led to attempts at stating objectives in behavioral terms so as to facilitate evaluation. Three studies in the 1950’s exemplified the efforts to develop educational programs which could be measured and evaluated: Elementary School Objectives by Nolan C. Kearney in 195 3, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain with Benjamin Bloom, editor, in 195 6, and Behavioral Goals of General Education in High 31 Schools by Will French in 1957 (Kearney £ Cook, 1960). Military training programs, starting with World War II, gave a boost to the development of performance objectives when psychologists were asked to develop pro grams which would equip trainees with identical abilities. The task analysis technique as evolved by Gagne and others was one of these developments. In this technique, the skill desired at the end of the unit of instruction was described and analyzed into sequential behavior in order to achieve the desired performance (Bloom, Hastings, 8 Madaus, 1971, pp. 23-25). Bloom's work with the cognitive domain was ex tended by the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Affec tive Domain by David R. Krathwohl et al. in 19 64. An ex plicit description of performance objectives was presented in Preparing Instructional Objectives by Robert F. Mager in 1962. In the 1960's, investigators placed increasing emphasis on the use of performance objectives as the basis for the supervision of instruction. Proponents of per formance objectives recommended that the teacher and supervisor agree on specific objectives to be achieved by the students and that the instructional program be evalu ated according to the extent to which the teacher achieved her stated objective (Ammons, 1969, pp. 911-912). 32 Characteristics of Performance Objectives Most definitions of performance objectives followed Mager’s (1962) three criteria: A performance ob jective states (a) an action performed by the learner, (b) the condition under which the performance takes place, and (c) the criteria of acceptable performance. Gies (1972, p. 3) noted that teachers claimed they had been stating objectives for years. Performance objectives, he felt, differed from these more traditional statements in several ways: 1. The emphasis is on observed activity. 2. The emphasis is on student activity rather than on the behavior of the teacher or the machine. 3. The emphasis is on outcomes or terminal points in instruction. A performance objective states what a student will know or be able to do at the conclusion of a bit of instruction, not during it. Gies held that stating objectives in behavioral terms reduced the ambiguity of such statements. When a statement was operationalized, there was much less probability of confusion and misunderstanding. Benefits arising from the use of objectives. Performance objectives are beneficial for different reasons and they may serve different purposes with different audiences (Gies, pp. 6-8). 33 1. Objectives may be used by teachers and administrators in sorting and directing learners; syste matic pretesting with objectives enhances the processes of grouping and enrichment. 2. Objectives that are communicated to the learner provide him with the opportunity to choose among them, plan his own course of learning, choose appropriate materials, read selectively, and use self-evaluation to direct his efforts. 3. Teachers who are provided with sets of objec tives can more rationally sequence instruction, allot time for topics, and assemble materials. Even more basically, an examination of course objectives may lead the teacher toward the realization that much of the con tent is irrelevant. In cases where the teacher himself writes the objectives, attention is focused away from con tent and onto the student, thus often producing revision in teaching methods. H. Increasingly in education, there is emphasis on evaluation for many different purposes; statements of objectives are the first steps in developing adequate tools for evaluating students, the instructional process, and the purposes and aims of the curriculum. 5. Investigation of the existing curriculum within a department or a school may draw attention to redundancy and to omissions which in turn can lead to 34 curriculum revisions. Composition of Objectives Mager (1962, p. 12) adopted a fairly uncompli cated approach in describing performance objectives in terms of three major elements: 1. Identify and specify the kind of behavior that will be accepted as evidence that the learner has achieved the objective. 2. Define the desired behavior by describing the important conditions under which the behavior will be expected to occur. 3. Specify the criteria of acceptable perfor mance by describing how well the learner must perform to be considered acceptable. Mager (1962) then conveyed a pragmatic view of this listing: Although each of these items might help an objective to be more specific, it will not be necessary to include all three in each objective. The object is to write objectives that communicate; the character istics described above . . . [serve] as guides to help you know when you have done so. You do not work on an objective until it demonstrates these characteristics; rather, you work oi. it until it clearly communicates one of your intended educational outcomes— and you write as many statements as are needed to describe all your intended outcomes. You can test whether a written objective clearly defines a desired outcome by answering "yes" to the following question: Can another competent person select successful learners in terms of the objective so that you, the objective writer, agree with the selection [p. 12]? 35 Bloom et al. (1971) echoed Mager1s assessment: Obj ectives . . . must succeed in communicating the teacher's intent. Communicating is successful when any knowl edgeable person in the same area can look at a student's behavior or product and decide whether or not the objective has been reached [p. 32]. Dodd (1943) carried this point one step further by suggesting that the degree to which different people can agree on whether a performance reflects a behavioral statement is an index of that statement's reliability or clarity. This study, however, was concerned with the applicability of performance objectives to a generating model. Mager's (1962) list and his comments contributed to the understanding of objectives, but his specifications were not stringent enough for use in the study model. Gronlund (197 0) noted that the emphasis on specificity and sharply defined terms in stating objec tives can also be overdone. In the effort to avoid ob jectives that are vague and ambiguous, objectives were often composed with long, unmanageable lists of tasks to be performed. Because of their specific nature, such lists of tasks were likely to stress "... only the lowest levels of knowledge and skill--to the neglect of under standing, interpretation, application, and other complex learning outcomes [p. iii]." A system for the construction of objectives should provide for the inclusion of learning 36 outcomes of all types and at all levels from the most simple to the complex. Gronlund advocated the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives as providing a useful approach and a basic frame of reference for preparing objectives. He demonstrated, by using illustrative lists of objectives and terms, how the Taxonomy could identify objectives at various levels of complexity. In an attempt to relate performance objectives to long-range goals, Hively (1972) observed an accompany ing pressure to think through complex problems. Objectives derived from goals were frequently found under the head ings of knowledge and ability rather than attitude and interest because the measurement of attitudes and interests seemed to require prior definition of related knowledges and abilities. Attitudes and interests may be thought of as tendencies to engage in behavior that reflects cer tain knowledge or ability in situations where it is not explicitly required or powerfully evoked. For example, we say a person knows how to read if he does it when we specifically order him to or when he is left in a library with little else to do. We say he is interested in reading if he does it frequently in situations where other activities are conveniently available. Similarly, we say a person knows how to examine an unfamiliar phenomenon in a systematic, scientific way if he does it when we set one up in the laboratory and ask him to do so. We say he has a scientific attitude if he frequently engages in such behavior outside the laboratory [p. 15]. Barro (1972, p. 199) noted that the desirable aspects of working with well defined objectives and with measurable outputs are found most frequently 37 1. in areas of cognitive skills, e.g., reading and mathematics, for which standardized and validated tests are available, and 2. in certain affective areas, such as sociali zation, attitudes toward the community, and self concept, which are reflected in rates of absenteeism, dropout rates, and incidents of vandalism and delinquency. Barro further observed that more adequate and acceptable instruments were available in the basic skills areas and that there seemed to be less disagreement over the goals from which elementary level objectives are de rived. He concluded, therefore, that experiments with accountability systems would probably be more productively carried on in the elementary schools. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives As used in this title, the term, objective, is used in its generic sense which includes goals as well as objectives. The Taxonomy was viewed as a vital element in providing direction and structure to the study model. A brief description is presented to show how the Taxonomy might serve in this important respect. The Taxonomy is a classification system of educa tional objectives and until recently consisted of two parts: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain (Bloom, 19 56) and Handbook II, Affective Domain (Krathwohl et al., 1964). 38 Work in the psychomotor domain using Bloom's and Krathwohl's format has been done by Dave (undated) and Simpson (1966). The original purpose of the Taxonomy was to facilitate communication among college examiners and their colleagues about objectives, test items, and test procedures. Bloom et al. (19 71) noted that the Taxonomy placed the behavioral aspect of the objective within a hierarchical framework of categories arranged along a con tinuum. The cognitive domain consists of an abstraction continuum ranging from the simple to the complex. In the affective domain, the continuum is one of internaliza- tion--the process by which a phenomenon or value progresses from a level of bare awareness to a position of power to guide or control a person's actions. Variables in the psychomotor domain concern those behaviors involving neuromuscular coordination. These behaviors were classified by Dave (undated, p. III-3) according to the following criteria: (a) frequency— rate or number of times a skill is performed, (b) energy--amount of strength or power needed to perform a skill, and (c) duration— length of time or persistence of performance. Dave listed five categories for the psychomotor domain: (a) imitation, (b) manipulation, (c) precision, (d) articulation, and (e) naturalization. Simpson (1966) used five different headings to 39 categorize the psychomotor domain: (a) perception— aware ness via sense organs, (b) set— readiness for action, (c) guided response— tutored behavior, (d) mechanism— habit, and (e) complex overt response--series of coordinated motor skills. The major categories of the cognitive domain as classified by Bloom (1956) are: knowledge, comprehen sion, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Categories for the affective domain (Krathwohl et al. , 1964) are: receiving (attending), responding, valuing, organization, and characterization. Certain interrelationships have been found among the three domains. Bemis and Schroeder (196 9) described Simpson’s attempt to classify objectives by domain; the same objective might have a different significance for different domain classifications. Bemis and Schroeder illustrated the interrelationships of the three domains for any given behavior. Although one domain is generally dominant, all three are present. For example, throwing a ball to a classmate is a psychomotor skill, but to per form this task the learner must desire (affective) to per form and know (cognitive) what a ball is as well as being able to recognize a classmate. Any objective encompassing a behavior will, in the same manner, have characteristics of all three domains, though one domain would generally be identifiable as dominant. 40 A number of ways the Taxonomy might assist in the development of the study model were considered: 1. Help specify goal statements in behavioral terms. 2. Assist in identifying similar types of ob- j ectives. 3. Assist in placing objectives at varying levels of the continua. 4. Assist in suggesting classes of objectives not previously considered. Accountability The concept of accountability prompted signifi cant effort and activity both within and without the educa tional establishment. Some of the difficulties encountered in implementing accountability arose from the attitude that accountability was unidimensional. Alkin (19 72, p. 4) identified three different types of accountability accord ing to the roles of the participants: 1. Goal Accountability. The school board is responsible to the public for the development of goals and objectives. 2. Program Accountability. The school district management is responsible to=the school board for the organization of appropriate programs to achieve the board's goals and objectives. 41 3. Outcome Accountability. The instructional manager or teacher is responsible to the school district management for outcome objectives consistent with the district programs. The object of this study, the study model, was mainly concerned with the first of these accountability types— goal accountability. Strickland, Alkin, and Burry (19 72, p. 8) described four major steps necessary for goal accountability: 1. Develop an information system to find out which goals are desired by various subgroups in the popu lation. 2. Determine problems and priorities so that the school system can respond to those areas which are of most concern to the community. 3. Establish the goals which represent the board's and the community’s points of view. 4. Develop performance objectives so that the degree of success which these objectives contribute toward meeting the goals can be measured. Programming-Planning-Budgeting System (PPBS) A Programming-Planning-Budgeting System (PPBS) was imposed on the Federal bureaucracy by President Johnson in 1965. Based on RAND Corporation research re garding performance budgeting, and originally designed to 42 be used in noneducational areas, PPBS has been adapted to assist educational decision makers in allocating scarce resources to priority programs (Alioto S Jungheer, 1971). In a recent RAND Corporation study, however, Haggart (1972, p. 7) contended that PPBS was more than a method of budgeting by program. She viewed a PPBS as a process whereby many activities were carried on within various components of that process. Four major components of the program budgeting process were described: (a) the structural aspect, (b) the analytical aspect, (c) the control aspect, and (d) the data and information aspect. The first component, the structural aspect, emphasized the interaction of the setting of objectives and the develop ment of a program structure. The identification of pro grams that helped to meet objectives would also serve to clarify those objectives. The converse would also be true, i.e., clarification of the objectives would assist the grouping of program elements into programs. In 1966, a California State Assembly advisory committee recommended to the State Legislature a procedure for implementing a PPBS. In 1971,the legislature required all school districts to adopt written, objective evaluation guidelines for the establishment of standards of expected student progress (Assembly Bill 293, also known as the Stull Bill). Heydt (1972) quoted the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Wilson Riles, as 43 stating that the accountability system would be an integral part of public education. According to Riles, one of the major principles of this system was the defining of goals and specific objectives and the evaluation of factors rele vant to these objectives to insure that they were being met. With the passage of Assembly Bill 293, implemen tation efforts were soon reported under way. Pamphlets, handbooks, manuals, and guidelines explaining PPBS were distributed as a prelude to its actual use in schools and classrooms. A number of PPBS models and several efforts to implement an accountability system are described in the following pages. PPBS Models The search for a model which could generate performance objectives may be conceptualized as one part of a systematic framework for improving the educational product. One such framework, related to his problem solving model, was proposed by Kaufman (1971): 44 (Revise as Required) r f i 1*— * i i i i <-- ? i Identify Determine Select Problem Solution Solution (From -9 Require 3 Strate Needs) ments and gies and Alterna Tools tives / \ Needs System PPBS Implement Determine Perfor- ^ nance ^Effec tiveness T'X 7^T Network Testing Assessment Analysis Methods- Based Assessment Behavioral Means Management Objectives Selection Tools Fig. 3. A possible relationship between current tools for the improvement of education and their relationship with a problem-solving process and a possible model for educational management [p. 2 55]. Of interest to this study were Kaufman's observations that these steps were not completely independent of one another and that PPBS could include a needs assessment and a systems analysis. Thus, the need for improvement in the educational product led to the concept of accountability which, in turn, provided the rationale for developing a PPBS. The generating of performance objectives, the subject of this study, was subsumed under most examples of PPBS. Various definitions of PPBS were found in the materials publicizing PPBS. Basically, PPBS was . . . designed to provide policy-making bodies and administrative personnel with the information neces sary to make sound choices among alternatives based on desired results, long-range cost projections, and resources available [Educational Management Specialists, undated, 1-2]. In this general context, PPBS could be applied 45 to other fields besides education. Educational Management Specialists provided a more suitable definition of PPBS which focused on education. PPBS provides the tools to plan and develop programs which will further the instructional process--evalu- ate these programs--provide long-range fiscal data so that choices may be wisely made among alternatives in striving for fulfillment of the district's goals [1-2]. Models of a PPBS describing the interrelation ships of its elements were outlined in a number of ways. The California School Boards Association (undated) pre sented a seven-point listing. An undated pamphlet by Educational Management Specialists offered a nine-point listing. The third preliminary edition of the California State Board of Education guide, also undated, used an analogue model. The difference in the elements of these three models illustrated the flexibility of the PPBS concept. The California State Board guide stated that the unique internal and external characteristics of a district, e.g., sociometric profile, size, and staff capabilities, would determine the form of the PPBS for that district. Since the nature of a PPBS was that of a process and not a pro duct , the content and form of a PPBS would not only vary among districts, but would also be subject to review and change within that district. The concern of this study centered on those 46 portions of the models which dealt with goals and objec tives ; the purpose of the study involved strengthening the link between the two. Projects Currently in Progress Reviewed in this section are examples of some California based programs as well as one program located elsewhere. In each case, the program descriptions pro vided are incomplete since only those aspects were in cluded which were related to the development of performance objectives. The California school districts, county offices, and research organizations mentioned were visited. All personnel whose names are included in the program de scriptions were, in the judgment of the investigators, among those most committed to the various programs de scribed . Project Leadership A response to the California legislature's interest in educational accountability was discussed by Beaubier (1972). The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) undertook to establish a means of providing the kind of educational change envisioned in the thrust toward accountability and PPBS. Called Project Leadership, its purpose was to establish an operational model as the means for achieving quality educational change. 47 Quality educational change was operationally defined as the "institution of instructional programs which are responsive to assessed priorities, needs of learners, and which assure the measurable and successful change by learners of skills, knowledges, etc., specific to establish the program Cp. 13]." Beaubier further described ACSA's attempt to implement its operational model by enlisting the aid of schools in over seventy districts. The basic planning model consisted of a bank of resource elements which sup ported, guided, and otherwise assisted the three thrusts, or components, of the total project. The plan is portrayed in an analogue model: NEEDS PROBLEM ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT SOLVING SUPPORT COMPONENT COMPONENT COMPONENT t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ I_ _ _ _ _ t *CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF EVALUATION "Evaluation Kit" "PPBS Kit" 'INSTITUTE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT *DELPHI TECHNIQUE OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES *SAN MATEO EDUCATION 'PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, RESOURCES CENTER BUDGETING SYSTEM (SMERC) * OTHER INPUT AGENCIES, -------------- IRESOURCE SUPPORT ELEMENTS!----------------- Fig. 4. Operational Model [p. 14] Each of the three components was expanded into separate analogue models. In this study, the focus of concern narrowed to the Needs Assessment Component as shown below: NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPONENT /s / T V 1.0 Nf 2.0 >f 3.0 W 4.0 Identify ^Design------ ^Obtain ^Translate — Educational Goal Consensus on Indicators Goals for Indicators Goals and Into Particular Indicators Behavioral Elementary Objectives School ^ 5.0 -^Determine Degree of Student ---------- •J/ 6.0 -^Select — I Areas Requiring Attainment of Change Behavioral (Problems) Objectives 7.0 -^■Initiate Problem Solving Sequence Fig. 5. Needs Assessment Component [p. 14]. The schools and districts associated with Project Leadership used the project models to develop their own programs locally. These programs, in various stages of development, concentrated on different parts of the three components. Two of the districts concerned with the Needs Assessment Component of Project Leadership are discussed in this section of the study. Within the Needs Assessment Component (Figure 5) attention was focused on the first four stages, 1.0 to 4.0, as this area was most closely related to this study. Fountain Valley School District The Fountain Valley School District in Fountain Valley, California, conducted a needs assessment within the district community, soliciting data to guide the school board in developing a relevant set of educational goals. According to Robert Sanchis, Assistant Superintendent, who was interviewed on 10 July 197 2, this set of goals was used as a base within each school to develop the school’s own set of objectives. In some cases, a local community and staff needs assessment helped focus on specific school priorities which, in turn, reflected district goals. In the process of developing criterion referenced materials for assessing student progress in the area of reading, a sequence of 277 performance objectives measured by 77 tests was organized into an exportable instructional program. After field testing, a marketable program called The Fountain Valley Reading Support System for Teachers achieved some commercial success (Brick 6 Sanchis, 1972) . The unique aspect of this approach was the development of sequential performance objectives which, by definition, comprised the academic skill, reading; in order to read, a learner would have to master all 277 ob jectives. The learner progressed through this sequence, individually guided by the teacher who assessed his prog ress, recycled him through objectives not fully 50 understood, and eliminated objectives already mastered. Newport-Mesa Unified School District This district served 26,000 students, K-12, from the California communities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. In an interview on 7 July 19 7 2 with Dale C. Wooley, Director of Personnel and Guidance, it was learned that district efforts leading to the development of per formance objectives for classroom use had been under way prior to the district's involvement with ACSA's Project Leadership in 1969. Of major importance in the develop ment of performance objectives was the district program, OBER, an acronym for Objective Based Evaluation in Reading. As noted by Skager (1971), OBER itself was an adaptation of SOBE-R, System for Objective Based Evaluation-Reading, an information system for evaluating reading programs devel oped by the Center for the Study of Evaluation located at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The Center was one of the Resource Support Elements (Figure 5) in the ACSA Project Leadership model. Otto (1972, p. 4) described the purposes of OBER as follows: 1. Provide a means of implementing the Board's Statement of Educational Principles in the area of reading. 2. Enable individual schools to establish a reading curriculum based on performance objectives that 51 is appropriate for their students and their unique charac teristics . 3. Free the staff from spending unnecessary time in writing the school’s goals and performance objec tives in reading. Two of OBER's major components described by Nicoll (1972, p. 2) were pertinent to this study: (a) the classification system, and (b) the bank of performance ob- j ectives. The classification system derived six broad reading categories from the appropriate statement of the Board's Statement of Educational Principles. These six categories were expanded into subcategories, content goals, and outcome objectives, as shown in abridged form in Figure 6: Statement of Educational principles _ Reading Composition Listening Speaking I Multi- sensory Reading Skills II Decoding Skills III Vocabulary Skills IV Compre hension V VI A Recognizev and Use"""' Letters of Alphabet B Recognize Sound- Symbol Relation ships (phonics) c Apply Rules of Spelling and Mechanics D ____ 52 IIA1 Recognize manu IIA2 script letters Recognize cur IIA3 sive letters Recognize alpha IIA4 betical order Identify vowels IIA5 and consonants Use letters 1- Given upper or lower* case letters in manuscript, the learner will identify each letter name 2- Given an upper or lower case letter xn manuscrxpt, the learner will find it on an alphabet chart 3- Given an upper or lower case letter in manuscript, the learner will identify its corresponding lower or upper case form iL-___________________________ 5- Fig. 6. Newport-Mesa Unified School District Levels of Refinement [p. 2] The bank of performance objectives consisted of more than 800 specific reading objectives, stated in oper ational form, and keyed to the goals of the classification system. These objectives, written at the Center for the Study of Evaluation (SOBE-R), were the result of an exten sive survey of the field of reading. Educator-teacher teams representing individual schools selected goals for defining school-specified reading programs; each team composed performance objectives to fit each of its goals. As presented by Otto (1972, pp. 5-6) the selections were made with two constraints: (a) each goal or objective was appropriate for 85 per cent or more of the students at a given grade level, and (b) the school required feedback about the success of the reading program in attaining its goal. 53 Wiseburn School District In 1969, the Wiseburn School District in Haw thorne, California, undertook the development of a PPBS in recognition of the accountability movement and the mandate of the State Legislature. With the communityTs strong financial support, workshops were organized and consultants engaged as part of an effort to build a rele vant educational program. Almost one-third of the dis trict’s teaching staff were involved in this effort, accord ing to an interview with Arthur Margolese, Director of Curriculum, on 14 June 19 72. Starting with district goals approved by the Board of Trustees, each division and section of the dis trict hierarchy, i.e., instruction, instructional support, school administration, library, pupil services, health services, etc., began developing goal statements and goal statement objectives in line with the district goals. In time, instructional program description packages in the areas of language arts, reading, mathematics, and science were developed. While ancillary instructional support services were concurrently developing their own goal statements and objectives, the teacher workshops were deriving specific learning objectives through a series of increasingly specific statements (Wiseburn School District, undated): 54 District Goal Statement (Board of Trustees): To help every child acquire to the fullest extent possible for him mastery of the basic skills in the use of words and numbers [A - 9]. Instruction Goal Statement (District Central Office): Each child will acquire the skills of reading, mathematics, and language arts [A - 11]. Mathematics Program Goal Statement (Central Office and Teacher Workshop): Each child will acquire the basic skills of numbers, numeration systems, problem solving, measurement, geometry, graphing, and statistics [VI - 7]. Program Goal Objective Statement (Central Office and Teacher Workshop): By the end of the eighth grade, 70% of all students will acquire mastery of the following mathematics strands as measured by a district designated evalu ative instrument (teacher or District-made or standardized). . . . Sets . . . Number . . . Numeration . . . Addition . . . Ratio, Percent, Proportion [VI - 8]. Learning Objective (Teacher Workshop): Given a set of objects - 5, child will draw an equivalent set [VI - 1-0]. An extensive guide in each of the subject areas showing suggested worksheets, resource materials, and evaluative materials for each objective, was developed for use by each teacher. 55 Individually Prescribed Instruction One of the best known and most widely used individualized instructional systems in the country, Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI), was described by Scanlon and Brown (1971). The IPI developmental model correlated specific objectives with diagnostic instruments, teaching materials, and methods of instruction. According to Bolvin and Glaser (1968), determina tion of the student's goals was a joint decision of the student and teacher, and dependent on the student's past experiences and achievement, his own long-range goals, and the structure of the subject matter. The objectives were redefined on the basis of the student's behavior viewed as the result of the instructional procedures. There is a sustained progress, reexamining the ob jectives, modifying instructional procedures, and clarifying the objectives in light of evaluating experience [p. 830]. Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools Education Planning Center The Education Planning Center at the office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools developed a detailed plan for implementing a PPBS within a school system of any size. The Center Coordinator, James Rudolph, who was interviewed on 22 June 1972, stated that the plan included an orientation for educators as well as specifics for writing and deriving performance objectives. 56 The county office was prepared to assist any of the dis tricts in Los Angeles County by providing consultants and following the procedures specified in the five phases of its model: (a) planning, (b) commitment and training, (c) program and evaluation development, (d) adoption and preparation, and (e) operation. These phases were expanded into 17 subphases which listed the actions and decisions required to complete the five main phases. Within the program and evaluation development phase, one subphase dealt with workshops and the develop ment of objectives from district goals. The procedural plan for a workshop amplified the PPBS model by specifying the following purposes for each participant: 1. Identify the component of a performance obj ective. 2. Distinguish between a goal and an objective. 3. Derive an objective from a.goal (Los Angeles, undated). With respect to the purpose of this study, the projects described above were considered deficient in de lineating adequately precise procedures for deriving ob jectives from goals. The balance of this chapter describes elements drawn from recent educational thinking which were deemed appropriate to the requirements of the study model. 57 Development of Objectives A number of strategies for developing objectives from goals were found in the literature; most of these procedures involved some means of arriving at a group con sensus. Sometimes, the members of these groups were curriculum specialists who prepared lists of objectives from which classroom teachers made their selection. In other cases, a group served as a frame of reference pro viding the teachers with a basis for making informed choices. Another plan, exemplified by the Wiseburn pro gram, involved a group of educators in the same school system as participants in the development of a core of system-wide objectives, a method which could lead to the formation of an item pool. Finally, there was the strategy of preparing objectives based on an analysis of teacher tests or classroom observations. One comprehensive project for providing a pool of objectives was Project PLAN (Flanagan, 1971) which published four volumes, titled Behavioral Objectives, in each of four curriculum areas— language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Each volume contains a collection of objectives classified by topics within each discipline and according to grade range. Similar collections of objectives and sample measurement items by subject area or discipline were conceived by the Instruc tional Objectives Exchange (19 70), also called IOX. Some 58 of the contents were developed by the IOX staff; others were submitted by teachers, schools,or school districts. Mention was also made of SOBE-R, System for Objective- Based Evaluation (Skager, 19 71) of the Center for the Study of Evaluation in the discussion of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District program. No one strategy was found which incorporated all the components of objective-forming models. The remainder of this section describes various methods of classifying goals and objectives and provides criteria for composing performance objectives. Establishing Educational Goals Several approaches to the establishment of edu cational goals were outlined in a paper published by the San Mateo County Schools (1972); the gamut of alternatives varied from limited choices to very comprehensive proce dures. On the one hand, there was the selection of an already existing statement of goals to be revised by a small number of participants and publicized only among school personnel. Much more complicated was the other extreme which involved all interested members of the school community (community, school personnel, students) in every step of the process from the initial open-ended discussion of the goals of education to the widest dissemination of the final statement of goals. The latter procedure was 59 the one which most clearly coincided with the intent of the California legislature. One such procedure involving all subgroups of a population was the Delphi Technique. According to Quade (1966), the views of the participants or experts were subjected to each other's criticism without actual confrontation and without the related psychological short comings. The interchange of opinion was achieved by a carefully designed sequence of questionnaires; at each successive step, the participants received new refined information, and a measure of the opinion feedback was realized by calculating a consensus. The process continued until a consensus was reached or, of equal importance, the conflicting views were recorded and documented for pro vision in the program. The Delphi procedure is described in greater detail in the discussion of the TARGET plan immediately following. The decision as to which goal to use for the development of appropriate objectives required an ordering of alternative goal priorities to be fed into the study model. This ordering was seen as part of the Needs Assessment component of the Project Leadership model described earlier in this chapter. A plan for developing priority educational goals by involving a cross section of the community was described by Wishart (undated). This plan was called TARGET--T0 Assess Relevant Goals of 60 Education Together. TARGET produced a consensus but, in addition, it solicited divergent viewpoints to be used in planning suitable alternative programs if warranted. TARGET pro posed to achieve its aims through the application of the Delphi Technique. A development of the RAND Corporation, the Delphi procedure involved three general requirements: anonymity of the respondents, iteration and controlled feedback, and statistical group response. The process starts with the selection of a Delphi panel or panels [made up of] . . . the students, the teachers, members of minority groups or others who have a perspective on education that will yield useful information. . . . Once selected, each member of the Delphi panel [writes] . . . from five to ten statements or judgments about the issue under con sideration. All of the responses are collected and clustered into groups with statements that have a close relationship. No individual statement is dropped. . . . The panel is asked for agreement on clusters and [then] . . . ranks the clusters in terms of their relative importance. There is no effort to force consensus. The objec tive is . . . to identify and retain all shades of judgments about the issue before the panel and to rank the judgments in order of relative importance. The data supplied anonymously and individually is collected and fed back to the entire panel. Reasons for their judgments can be solicited, also anony mously, and [considered by] . . . the entire panel. . . . A statistical measure is taken, the median or the mean, which is called the group response. An important feature of this way of defining the group judgment is that the opinion of every member of the group plays a role in determining the group answer [p. 9]. Weaver's (1971, p. 273) critique of the Delphi 61 Technique pointed out some strengths as well as some weak nesses. One shortcoming was the anonymity feature created to prevent professional status and judgment from having too great an influence on the consensus. On the contrary, knowledge of the group response, or median, seemed to have a considerable effect on individuals' revising their ratings. These ratings closed in on the consensus less because of rational arguments and examination of evidence than because of personality factors such as fundamental needs. Such personality factors as alienation, anxiety, social deviance, and emotional stability were seen as affecting an individual panel member's view of the future. In spite of these misgivings, Weaver maintained that the Delphi Technique assisted educators to make better de cisions by providing certain pedagogical procedures: A 1. a method for studying the process of thinking about the future. 2. a teaching tool which encouraged people to focus their thinking about the future more effectively. 3. a planning tool to aid the probing of priorities held by members and constituencies of organi zations . Similar to the Delphi Technique, an approach to goal assessment designed by EPIC Diversified Systems Corporation (1972b) of Tucson, Arizona, encompassed three phases: 62 1. Determination of Concerns and Goal Priorities. 2. Identification of Related Learner Needs. 3. Establishment of Related Educational Pro grams. Phases 1 and 2 dealt with the determination of goals and objectives, respectively. This concern with ob jectives is discussed later in this chapter. EPIC judged the most common technique of collect ing information related to the establishment of goal priorities to be the ranking of goals from most important to least important by the representative population. Rated as even more effective was the technique of asking the representatives not only what should be occurring in education, but whether or not the schools were contributing anything toward the attainment of specified learner goals. Hierarchies of Goals and Objectives A guide for California schools (California State Board, undated), prepared for the Advisory Commission on School District Budgeting and Accounting, defined the re lationship between goals and objectives in terms of hierarchies. Goals, like objectives, can be related in a hierarchy of specificity: A - Students will develop skills enabling them to gain employment. 63 Gg - Students will develop skills in business, home economics, and agriculture G^ - All students will develop skills in typing, shorthand, bookkeeping, and office machine operation Gg - Students will develop bookkeeping skills such as making journal entries, posting entries to a general ledger, and preparing trial balance and financial statements [II - 6a] As the goal becomes more specific, the infinitive form "will develop" remains the same; only the direct object changes. Goals can be related horizontally: [Goal:] . . . to develop individuals who can communi cate . . . effectively and with proper language. [Objective:] Students completing the sixth grade will write an essay of approximately 300 words on a selec ted topic that meets the following criteria as eval uated by their teachers: 1. Not more than four errors in each of the follow ing categories: word usage, punctuation, capitali zation, and spelling. 2. Essay contains relevant material presented in logical order. 3. Paragraphs are structured to present a central idea or thought [II - 7]. The generation of several closely related performance ob jectives provides a better measure of the achievement of 1 the stated goal than can any one objective. Goals and objectives can be placed in a paired hierarchy: n A [from II - 6a] - Students will develop skills enabling them to gain employment. 64 A - Graduating seniors who wish to enter the labor force will gain employment within three months of graduation as measured by a postgraduation survey G B - Students will develop skills in business, home economics, and agriculture - Graduating seniors who wish to enter the labor force will gain employment as desired in busi ness. home economics, or agriculture within three months of graduation as measured by a district survey Q C - All students will develop skills in typing, shorthand, bookkeeping, and office machine operation - Business curriculum students will meet the following standards by graduation: Typing - 40 words per minute as measured by the IBM test with 9 0 percent accuracy Shorthand - 6 0 words per minute as measured by the Gregg test with a 2,000-word vocab ulary Bookkeeping - demonstrate ability to use journals, ledgers, trial balances and financial statements as determined by a districtwide test Office machine operation - mean score equal to national average on NCR tests p D - Students will develop bookkeeping skills such as making journal entries, posting entries to a general ledger, and preparing trial balance and financial statements - Upon course completion, students will accomplish the following as determined by district devised classroom tests: State and understand the basic accounting equation of double entry bookkeeping Correctly make five journal entries taken from class discussions 65 Correctly complete a trial balance from a narrative problem [II - 1 to II - 9], Achievement of the objectives in the lower tier goals auto matically advances the system toward higher tier goals. Jenkins and Deno (19 70, pp. 11 - 13) demonstrated in a hierarchical model that objectives exist at different levels of abstractness. These levels, of which there are four, inferred the learner’s ability to perform on the more abstract levels from his observed ability at the most specific level. Level A objectives were likened by the authors to abstract global educational goals, e.g., educating for good citizenship. Level B objectives, termed "hypothetical disposi tional states," are less abstract than Level A objectives, e.g., knows or understands a concept or instances of a concept. Level C objectives identified more specific capabilities of the learner, e.g., classifying by sorting into piles or by drawing lines on a written test. Level D objectives were the most specific and reliable with virtually no disagreement on the part of observers as to the performance. [From] . . . performance on a level D item ("checks instances of the concept prejudice to a criterion of 100% correct") we infer that a student is capable of "classifying” instances of that concept (Level C) which, in turn, will provide some basis for inferring that a student "knows” the concept (Level B) and 66 eventually that a student is becoming a good citizen (Level A) [p. 13]. Without the high degree of reliability obtained with Level D objectives, the inferences at levels C, B, and A have only limited validity. The study by Jenkins and Deno (1970, p. 13) point ed out that each level of objectives was appropriate to certain needs and certain persons. For example, broad Level A objectives may be the appropriate mode for educa tional planners 5 specific Level C objectives may prove more useful to teachers or instructional designers. A similar view was expressed by Krathwohl (1965, pp. 83 - 92) who pointed out that global objectives can be refined into intermediate objectives (e.g., for a course) which in turn can be reduced to specific objec tives, each representing a skill or concept; the objective should be just specific enough to accomplish the job for which it is designed. Different learner groups call for differentially specific objectives. An expansion of educational terms and topics into a hierarchy of specificity was undertaken at the Center for the Study of Evaluation (undated a, undated b). Each term and topic branched off into more numerous and specific elements as seen in Appendix C and Appendix D. Composing Performance Objectives A format for demonstrating the criteria or 67 variables used in composing performance objectives was developed by EPIC (19 71). In EPIC's format, a performance objective was comprised of six variables: Institutional variable. The institutional vari able referred to the individual or group who was to per form the expected behavior. EPIC's organizational struc ture listed these as the student, teacher, administrator, educational specialist, family, and community. The degree of specificity used in an objective could vary from the total specified population to the individual student. Behavioral variable. The behavioral variable en compassed the three taxonomy domains (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor). An objective's degree of specificity could vary from a domain (e.g., cognitive) to a subcategory of a domain (e.g., knowledge of a specific fact or term). Instructional variable. The instructional vari able included five elements: 1. organization or learning environment— self- contained classroom, departmentalized, non-graded, etc. 2. content or body of knowledge— reading, mathe matics, etc. 3. method or teaching activity— lecture, demon stration, etc.; type of interaction— teacher-student, student-student, student-media, etc.; or learning prin ciples or theories— operant conditioning, field, Gestalt, etc. 68 4. facilities referred to equipment, space, or expendables— reading laboratories, projectors, dittos, etc. 5. cost variable, included in any complete evalu ation of an educational program— money. For the purposes of this study, the instructional variable of greatest interest was content. Degree of specificity could range from a broad curriculum area to a single fact. Method of measurement. The measurement variable specified how the behavior would be measured. Specificity could range from a broad test-sampling procedure to a single question. Time or prerequisites required. The time variable included the necessary prerequisites required to bring about the desired behavior. Specificity could range from a sequence (life span, grade, etc.) to a single task. Proficiency level. The proficiency level speci fied how well the behavior was to be performed. Specifi city could range from group accomplishment to success of one task in one try. An example of EPIC's (1972a) format for composing an objective is shown in Figure 7. 69 TIME INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLE Upon completion of the unit, each third grade student will, PROFICIENCY LEVEL BEI-IAVIORAL VARIABLE with 10 0% accuracy; display his knowledge of multiplication facts INSTRUCTIONAL VARIABLE by correctly naming the products in a 10 x 10 multiplication table. MEASUREMENT Fig. 7. Format for Composing Objectives [p. 35] Gerlach (1967) specified four criteria for com posing performance objectives similar to those listed in EPIC's format: 1. A performance objective must define learner behavior. A simple test of this criterion is to ask the question, "Who is doing the behavior?," and the answer must be the learner. 2. A performance objective must describe an identifiable or observable operation or an identifiable or observable product of an operation. 3. A performance objective must include a state ment of the conditions under which the behavior is to occur Gerlach pointed out that the time factor must be stated if it is a matter of concern. 4. A performance objective will state the quality of the learner's performance or product, or in clude a standard of performance by which the learner's performance or product is evaluated or measured. The use of different lists of words or terms was seen as assisting in the formulation of objectives. Gronlund (1967, Ch. 4) offered examples of behavioral terms for use in stating specific learning outcomes re lated to the Taxonomy. Specific infinitives for each of the major categories of the cognitive and affective domains were listed, plus a general grouping for the psychomotor domain. Another list of key words derived from the Taxonomy was developed by Metfessel et al. (1969, pp. 228- 2 31) to assist in the formulation of statements of specific performance objectives. This instrumentation tabulated examples of infinitives and direct objects corresponding to the taxonomic classifications in the cognitive and affective domains. This tabulation is shown as Appendix E. Summary The use of models and performance objectives as a combination in research is infrequent. In order .to approach the purpose of the study, the literature was 71 reviewed under all headings which appeared to be related to the building of an objective-generating model. Systems analysis was examined as a general problem solving approach including the use of models, and the theory of model building was explored. The history and general characteristics of performance objectives followed, with emphasis on the applicability of objectives to a generating model. A discussion of the concept of accountability led directly into an examination of Programming-Planning- Budgeting Systems. Various PPBS models were described with special emphasis on those parts of the models that dealt with goals and objectives. This led directly into descriptions of several projects by school districts and other educational organizations that had as their aim the development of performance objectives. The last portion of the chapter focused on strategies and techniques for developing objectives from goals, and examples of levels and hierarchies of goals and objectives were presented. Finally, collections of selected words and terms used in the formulation of ob jectives were cited. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY In Chapter I, the rationale for the study was presented as an approach to a problem facing education and society. The concept of educational accountability was advanced as a problem which merited investigation; this study encompassed one portion of that problem. Chapter II focused on the literature related to the development of an objective-generating model. Ex plorations in the areas of models, goals, and objectives, and descriptions of current efforts to implement the development of objectives, revealed that the effective use of objectives in education still awaited the solution to many issues. The recognition of these shortcomings led to an analysis of research strategies, techniques, and instrumentations which could contribute to this study. The literature reviewed dealt mainly with developments occurring since the 19 5 0's; many of the citations came from articles describing studies still in progress. Chapter III was concerned with the development of a strategy for constructing the study model. This approach helped to identify the components of the study model and to suggest a framework of relationships. 72 73 Tentative Conceptual Model The tentative conceptual model (Figure 8) repre sented the initial attempt at the creation of a generating model. Each of the levels shown in the model included a category of goals or objectives (goal-objectives-in- process) and a corresponding screen. The goal-objectives within any specific category were characterized by their degree of abstractness or distance from observable data; categories ranged from the most abstract to the highly specific. Each screen associated with a particular category represented certain specified procedures and techniques which were used to achieve the transformation of the goal- obj ectives. As the goal-objectives passed through succes sive screens, and from one level of the model to the next and less abstract level, they became more behavioral in nature until the final transformation refined them into performance objectives. A Statement of Educational Objectives for USDESEA An important reference for this study, but not cited in Chapter II, was "A Statement of Educational Objectives for USDESEA" (SEO, Definitions, Chap.ter I). Though not involved in the construction of the study model, SEO was an essential component and was reserved for use as the criterion input for testing the model. SEO was LEVEL L, LEVEL L< LEVEL L N ---- 1 S creen Screen GOAL-OS JECTH/E* IN - PROCESS Goal A / \ CATEGORY c„ PERFORMANCE OBJECTll/E FIGURE 8 T E N T A T I V E CONCEPTUAL MODEL -p 75 organized in two sections: 1. The first section included the statement it self, a philosophical position describing the dimensions of USDESEA's functions and responsibilities. The frame work for these dimensions was guided by Bloom's and Krathwohl's taxonomies. 2. An appendix under the heading, "Detailed Objectives: A Working Paper," comprised the second sec tion. This appendix, an outline of goal statements derived from the first section, was included in its entirety as Appendix A of this study. It should be noted that the second section of SEO, Appendix A of this study, is incomplete and under develop ment. As with the other instrumentations, incorporation into the study was not meant to convey any implication concerning SEO's merits as an educational document. The study's focus on the needs of USDESEA determined the selection of SEO; any other outline of goal statements could have been used in a similar fashion. Developmental Plan for the Study Model Three major areas of exploration were seen as necessary to the development of an objective-generating model: models, objectives, and the generating aspect of the study model. This generating aspect corresponded to the directed interactions among the elements of the study model. The definition of a system (Miller et al., 1968) and the accompanying model used to depict basic system relationships were applied to a conceptualization of the study model (Figure 9). ,__________________ c&rtfrsl__________ _ I I \ i / V M/ ^ Inputs ----- 7 Performance Outputs ' Fig. 9. Basic System Relationships [p. 50] The model's inputs included information and resources. Performance was related to functional and structural as pects. Outputs included the products which were character istic ends of the system. Feedback control referred to a check on performance quality in relation to inputs and outputs. The positive difference between inputs and out puts was seen as contributions of the system. Performance was to be defined not in terms of specific functions but in terms of the system's objectives. Within this conceptual context, the study model's inputs included SEO information plus resource data. These inputs were combined within the performance stage and emerged as objectives, the study model's outputs. The activities of generation incorporated within the perfor mance stage were envisioned as a complex multi-unit system. Within such a performance system, the output of one 77 performance unit could constitute the input for another performance unit before the attainment of the final output stage. Approach to the Study The approach selected for this study combined elements of Quade's (1966) process of analysis and Rucker's (1969) development of a problem-processing service model. Quade's process of analysis. Quade (p. 7) re lated the basic importance of a model to the other four elements of a systems analysis: 1. Objectives. As used by Quade, this term in cluded goals. The chief task of analysis was the selection of the alternative judged best in terms of how well the ob jective was attained. 2. Cost. Although most costs were measured in money, their true measure was in terms of the opportunities they precluded. 3. Alternatives. These were the means by which objectives might be attained. * 4-. Criteria. These were the rules or standards used to rank alternatives in order of desirability. Quade's process of analysis was developed in three overlapping stages. The formulation stage which included the clarification of issues, the establishment of limita tions, and the identification of elements, corresponded to 78 Rucker's development of a gross mission statement and the limits of a model. Quade's second stage, the search, was described as the gathering of information and the genera tion of alternatives. In Rucker's plan, this stage in cluded the mission profile and the interactions and inter relationships within the mission profile. Quade's third stage, the process of evaluation, was the examination by the model of the various alterna tives generated, alternatives which might require dis covery or invention. The model aligned the costs with the objective for each alternative generated. Criteria were then used to weigh costs against performance; alter natives could thus be arranged in order of preference. In Rucker's plan, this third stage was related to the model's constraints through which the alternatives would have to pass. Rucker's developmental plan. The plan for model development used by Rucker was also appropriate for the development of the study model and was, in fact, the plan that was followed most closely. Rucker's model was an analogue in Churchman's terms, a "Problem Solver" in Havelock's terms, and a modification of the tentative conceptual study model. Rucker's developmental plan was thus in agreement with the line of thinking followed throughout this study. The components of Rucker's plan involved a conception of the study model in five parts: 79 (a) the gross mission statement, (b) the limits, (c) the constraints, (d) the mission profile, and (e) the relation ships and interactions within the mission profile. In describing these components, Rucker's use of the term "objective" included goals: A gross mission statement . . . contains the general purpose or main objective of the . . . [study model]. This statement is then augmented by a series of sub objectives which clarify and define more specifically the intent of the [main statement]. Every system which is designed to be operational must meet certain pre-established requirements. These re quirements are . . . [also called] limits, and their purpose is to control the manner in which the model is molded .... [Certain delimitations or restrictions are also imposed on the model.] These restrictions, which act to delimit the operational capabilities of the model, are referred to as constraints. Once the gross mission statement has been evolved, objectives defined, and limits and constraints stated, the model's functions are delineated in an outline form . . . a mission profile. This profile states . . . those functions which must be performed if the objectives for the model are to be achieved. Sub groupings under the main functions are carried to a point where it appears they convey the entire intent of the main function .... The mission profile, made up of the model's functions, is then displayed schematically in a visual interpre tation of the relationships and interactions which occur between the various functions [p. 130]. Gross Mission Statement The gross mission statement of the study model began with a consideration of the problem statement for this study. To provide direction for the actual construc tion of the study model, the gross mission statement had 80 to include some reference to the basic input. The gross mission statement thus mirrored in words what the study itself was designed to accomplish: To develop a model which will generate objectives from goals or goal indica tors . Goal statements (objectives in Rucker's terms) were then developed to amplify the gross mission statement in sufficient detail to help guide the formulation of the study model's functions, viz: 1. To translate goals or goal indicators into performance objectives. 2. To show a logical relationship between goals or goal indicators and objectives derived from these goals or goal indicators. 3. To guide the formulation of objectives rele vant to goals or goal indicators. *+. To provide a prototype model which could be adapted for use in other school districts. 5. To assist in the evaluation of goals and goal indicators. 6. To provide documentary support for a school district's efforts to achieve accountability. Limitations The preestablished limitations for the operation of the study model were set in an environmental context 81 within which the study model would be used. Not all objec tives generated were suitable for use in e prescribed context of an educational setting. The objectives gener ated by the study model had to meet the following limita tions : 1. The derived objectives will have intrinsic educational value. 2. The derived objectives will be economically feasible to achieve. 3. The derived objectives will not violate legal limitations on school operations. 4. The derived objectives will not violate com munity mores. 5. The derived objectives will be appropriate for the maturity level of the learners. Constraints Constraints upon the study model were developed to make the study model operable. These constraints were practical delimitations which were selected as necessary to channel the input goals or goal indicators along the path of the study model's transformational processes. Of the five constraints finally developed, two were imposed initially. Subsequent constraints were developed during the construction of the study model to close gaps in the transformational process, i.e., those areas where the 82 sequential steps in the transformational process did not follow logically. In offering support for two other constraints, Barro (1972) contended that it was most feasible to work with objectives which were well defined and measurable; such objectives were most likely to be found in the cog nitive and affective domains. Furthermore, Barro judged that experiments with accountability systems would probably be more productively carried on in the elementary schools. The acceptance of these constraints reflected the need to achieve a working model; even a limited success could en courage efforts to achieve a generating model with fewer constraints and greater capabilities. The fifth constraint placed upon the study model was governed by the availability of resources which might be organized for use in the study model's transformational stages. These resources are discussed later in the chap ter. A summary of the study model's constraints comprises five statements: 1 SEO would supply the goals or goal indicators to test the study model. 2. The study model could be activated by one person. 3. The study model would generate objectives mainly in the cognitive and affective domains. 4. The study model would generate objectives 83 mainly at the elementary level. 5. The study model would use the following re sources in the transformational process: (a) CSE's Outline of 14-5 Goals of Elementary Education (Center for the Study of Evaluation, undated), (b) Metfessel's Instrumentation of Bloom's and Krathwohl's Taxonomies for the Writing of Edu cational Objectives (Metfessel et al., 1969), and (c) six elements based on EPIC's format for Writing Performance Objectives (EPIC, 1972a). Mission Profile The mission profile specified the sequential functions of the study model. The profile, the study model in outline form, was constructed from the gross mission statement, the limitations, and the constraints described above. "These . . . functions are now placed in their mission profile order, with subfunctions . . . being identified as extensions of the nominal sequence through decimal type notation [Rucker, 1969, p. 143]." 1.0 Selecting an initial set of goals. 1.1 Accepting prewritten statements of goals (see Appendix A). 1.2 Formulating a new set of goals. 1.2.1 Submitting statements of goals considered to be most important. 1.2.2 Listing responses in clusters of related 84 statements, with each cluster rewritten as a single goal. 2.0 Determining initial ranking of goals. 2.1 Ranking goals in order of importance. 2.2 Calculating a group median for each goal. 3.0 Determining the degree of attainment of goals. 3.1 Ranking the progress toward the attainment of goals. 3.2 Calculating a group median for each goal. 4.0 Determining priority of goals. 4.1 Calculating the discrepancy between goal impor tance (2.2) and progress toward the attainment of goals (3.2). 4.2 Listing goals in order of priority, with number one assigned to the goal receiving the highest negative value or discrepancy. 5.0 Increasing the specificity of goals.(see Appendix B). 5.1 Selecting a priority goal plus any related goal categories (4.2). 5.2 Selecting the major headings related to the priority goal (see Appendix C). 5.3 Selecting the goal elements subsumed under each major heading (see Appendix D). 6.0 Composing taxonomically-oriented phrases. 6.1 Selecting taxonomic classifications related to each goal element selected (see Appendix E). 85 6.2 Listing infinitive forms and direct objects related to each taxonomic classification (see Appendix E). 6.3 Pairing the infinitives and direct objects in all possible arrangements. 6.4 Selecting meaningful pairs of infinitives and direct objects. 7.0 Increasing specificity of phrases. 7.1 Accumulating a bank of specific direct objects appropriate to each direct object selected in 6.4. These specific direct objects are to be drawn from the activator’s knowledge or from a recognized authority. 7.2 Replacing or inserting the specific direct ob jects in the pairs selected (6.4). 7.3 Selecting meaningful pairs of infinitives and specific direct objects. 8.0 Composing performance objectives. 8.1 Listing elements of a performance objective (see Appendix F). 8.2 Supplying_elements from the study model. 8.3 Supplying elements from the activator. 8.4 Rephrasing and reordering all six elements for idiomatic correctness, as required. 8.5 Writing the performance objective. 86 Relationships and Interactions Within the Mission Profile Certain terms selected to describe the relation ships and interactions within the mission profile were also used in the study model. In drawing the study model, symbols replaced some of these terms. Activator. The person who uses Stage II of the study model is the activator. By following the study model’s instructions, using the specified resources, and making the comparisons, judgments, and decisions as directed by the study model, the activator generates per formance objectives. At function 7.0 the activator himself becomes one of the model's components; he furnish es specific input by providing additional modification of the terms undergoing processing. Decision point. A point in the sequence of steps described in the study model and requiring a choice by the representative panel is a decision point. There is one decision point at function 1.0. Lines and symbols. Lines with arrows were used to show the flow and direction of sequences. Letters were used to denote resources available to those using the study model. A diamond-shaped figure denotes a decision point. A block arrow represents input resources. Bank of specific direct objects (function 7.1). One of a list of resources to be consulted as directd by 87 the study model, a bank of terms is included in Appendix E. A bank of terms from a recognized authority might be a textbook, handbook, or some other specialized reference. Act ivator * s worksheet. An instrument developed as a guide to the use of Stage II of the study model is found in Appendix B. Immediately following the worksheet is a commentary on an example which illustrates how the worksheet is to be used. Construction Design of the Study Model The study model was envisioned as more than the sum of its parts. Of the available strategies, techniques, and instrumentations examined in this study, those selected for inclusion displayed best the characteristics required by the study model. Where necessary, minor adaptations and modifications were adopted to make these components of the study model more functional and operational, but without damaging the integrity of the respective compo nents. Once selected for inclusion in the study model, each component became another constraint upon the study model. Major Resources Used in the Study Model Delphi Technique. The use of the Delphi Technique in the study model was an adaptation of the basic technique which included the stated requirements of respondent anonymity, iteration or controlled feedback, and 88 statistical group response. It should be noted that one portion of the Delphi procedure in Stage I of the study model, function 1.2 (formulating a new set of goals), was not essential to the purposes of the study. Function 1.0 (selecting an initial set of goals) was a decision point permitting movement through function 1.1 (accepting prewritten statements of goals) or function 1.2. The requirement of this study that SEO be used precluded the need for a new set of goals. Function 1.2 was retained, however, to promote objective 4 - of the study model's developmental plan, viz., to provide a prototype model which could be adapted for use in other school districts. The alternative offered by function 1.2 in preference to function 1.1 could be selected by educational organizations desiring to formulate their own set of goals. In its strictest sense, the process of goal formulation was not essential to an objective-generating model. The stated purpose of the study model was to generate objectives from goals, i.e., goals were the study model's inputs, the point at which the study model was to be activated. In this sense, the process of goal selection, i.e., the use of the Delphi Technique, was a refining, or preparatory stage, of the input prior to feeding into the study model. Although the Delphi Technique involved the 89 participation of members of the community, the use of the Delphi Technique did not violate restriction 2 of the study model's developmental plan, i.e., the study model could be activated by one person. CSE outline of 14 5 goals of elementary education. The CSE collection of goals was selected for use in the study model because of its organizational structure. Each goal was outlined in terms explicit enough to facilitate increased specificity through the use of other refining instruments. In this study, two appendices were used to depict the CSE instrument. Appendix C contains the com plete list of 145 goals; Appendix D includes a breakdown, in outline charts, of each of the 145 goals. Metfessel's instrumentation for writing objec tives . This collection of infinitives and direct objects (Appendix E) was organized according to Bloom's and Krath- wohl1s taxonomies of the cognitive and affective domains. This instrumentation was used to obtain further refine ments of specificity from the levels achieved through the CSE outlines. EPIC's six elements of performance objectives. EPIC's six elements of performance objectives were judged the best of those examined. Only two of the six elements described in Appendix F were developed by the model, i.e., the behavior and content elements. The other four elements were supplied by the study model's activator (the person 90 using the study model) with only minimal guidance from the model itself. Reordering the elements of the written ob jective might be required to make grammatical sense. Processing Goal Inputs The study model was pictured in two distinct stages, functions 1.0 - 4.0 and functions 5.0 - 8.0. The first stage involved the processing of goal inputs; the second stage generated the objectives. The first stage used the Delphi Technique to determine goals and goal priorities; this stage was viewed as a preliminary but necessary procedure to the stated purpose of the study model— the actual generation of objectives. Part of this preliminary procedure included the mention of two terms in the study model which were not part of the mission pro file . Coordinating committee. The coordinating commit tee was responsible for organizing the essential procedures of the needs assessment, that portion of the study model which included the establishment of goals in priority order (functions 1.0 - 4.0). This responsibility included the following tasks: 1. Select a representative panel, using random sampling techniques whenever necessary, to represent every point of view and every subgroup of the community. 2. Collect statements or judgments submitted by 91 the panel. 3. Cluster the panel's responses into groups of statements having a close relationship. 4. Calculate the necessary statistics. Representative panel. The selection of a panel representing the total community could be accomplished at any educational level where a needs assessment was deemed necessary, e.g., state, district, or classroom. Three major responsibilities were assigned to the panel: 1. Identify the major subpopulations to be in volved in the needs assessment; subpopulations included major categories of people, e.g., students, educators, business people. 2. Identify subgroups under each subpopulation, e.g., educators could be divided into classroom teachers, administrators, specialists. 3. Select a group of individual representatives of the subgroups through the use of random sampling tech niques . Ranking of goals. The ranking process used in the Delphi Technique required one statistical measure, the group median. A group median was calculated for each individual goal at two different points in the study model, 2.2 and 3.2. These calculations were designed to reveal divergent concerns among subgroups which the school or district could take into account in setting up educational 92 programs. The ranking of goals and the calculation of medians on an identical scale, such as 0 to 10 0, permitted a direct comparison to be made whenever such a procedure was desired. The procedures for determining goal priorities, functions 1.0 - 4.0, should be accomplished periodically. Changes in goal priorities thus identified would facilitate advance planning to meet these shifts in community outlook. Evaluation and Modification of the Study Model Suggestions for improving the study model were solicited from a panel of five evaluators. Each evaluator had been personally contacted by one or both of the in vestigators during the summer of 1972; all had expressed interest in this study. A preliminary study model con structed from the mission profile was added to other selected materials to be used by the panel. The evaluation packet sent to each evaluator included the following items listed in the order they were to be used: 1. Request letter (Appendix G). 2. Information for evaluating the study model (Appendix H). 3. Terminology used in the study model (Chapter III). 4. Mission profile. 5. SEO (Appendix A). 6. Activator's worksheet (Appendix B). 7. Major headings of CSE's 145 goals of elem entary education (Appendix C). 8. Six CSE chart outlines (Appendix D). 9. Metfessel's tables (Appendix E). 10. Elements of a performance objective (Appen dix F). The panel of evaluators included (a) Mr. Carl Gustafson, USDESEA Associate Director, Curriculum, and chief architect of SEO, (b) Dr. James Rudolph, Coordinator, Education Planning Center, Division of Curriculum and Instructional Services, Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, (c) Dr. Arthur Margolese, Director of Curriculum, Wiseburn School District, (d) Dr. James Burry, Research Associate, Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California at Los Angeles, and (e) Mr. Dale Woolley, Director of Guidance, Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Evaluations of the study model were received from four of the five panel members. Specific favorable comments confirmed the logical flow of the study model's functions; the model could be used to generate performance objectives. The feedback revealed several concerns; responses follow these enumerated concerns: 1. Wording of function 1.0 was unclear. Wording was changed. 94 2. Visual clarity of the study model's relation ships was confusing. The model’s functional relationships were clari fied in Chapters II and III; these sections, however, were not part of the evaluation packet. 3. Determination of goals should be subject to a continuous needs assessment. This advisory note, not part of the evaluation packet, was included in Chapter III. 4. Functions related to the determination of factors leading to a life of worth were inappropriate. These functions, used in the preliminary study model, were reexamined, determined to be dispensable, and discarded. 5. Rankings of goals by the representative panel was based on opinion rather than on facts. Organization of the panel to include all subgroups of the community and all viewpoints was judged to guarantee a sound basis for the panel's decisions. 6. SEO, Appendix A of the study, was incomplete and still under development and, consequently, a poor choice for an instrument. The focus on USDESEA dictated the selection of SEO as a component of the study model. Evaluation of instrumentations was considered only from the standpoint of suitability for the study model; the replaceability 95 feature permitted the use of any similar components deemed to be more suitable. 7. The CSE collection emphasizes the traditional type of goal to the exclusion of such essentials as career education and interdisciplinary goals. The replaceability feature permitted the use of similar components deemed to be more suitable. 8. Needs of the learner were overlooked in the objective-generating process. The evaluation of objectives, other than meeting the requirements of EPIC's six elements, was not a part of the study. The activator was advised in Appendix F to take due regard of the differences among learners. 9. Entering behavior of the activator would affect his ability to generate objectives; a pretest should be used. This was recommended for further investigation. 10. Exclusion of the psychomotor domain and secondary school objectives is a weakness of the study. A prime purpose of the study was to construct a successful objective-generating model, even though the model might be limited in its capacity. Broadening the capability of the study model was recommended for further investigation. 11. Procedures for composing performance objec tives should be specified in more detail. 96 Recommended for further investigation. A flowchart (Figure 10) was selected as an appropriate format for summarizing this chapter. A ppendix A CHAPTER X DELPHI TECH NlOU E C S C GOAL OUTLINE CHARTS METFESSEL'S TABLES CHAPTER HZ as---- EPIC'S FORMAT FOR PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES TENTATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODEL Hil l e r's Model i * W R u c k e r 's D evelopmental Plan T Q u a d e s P r o c e s s of A n a l y s is Activator's Worksheet Appendix B I STAGE I ^ . APPENDIX C > APPENDIX b | £ APPEND IK E APPENDIX. F ^ STAGE 3L GROSS M ISSIO N S T A T B M B N T LIM ITA TIO N S *-? C O N STR A IN TS ^ M I S S I O N PROFILE P r e l im in a r y STUDY MODEL. PANEL. OF EVALUATORS STUDY MODEL F IG U R E 10 FLOWCHART SUMMARIZING CHAPTER H I CD CHAPTER IV THE STUDY MODEL: CONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS Construction of the Study Model The construction of a preliminary study model was attempted only after a performance objective had been generated by means of the mission profile. By analyzing each function and subfunction during the generation of the objective, the interacting relationships among the various functions and components were identified. These interacting relationships were shown in the preliminary study model by lines and arrows; the locations of the lines helped guide the model’s design. The final step in the construction of the study model was the incorpora tion of suggestions from the panel of evaluators into the preliminary study model. Whereas the purpose of the mission profile was to specify each step in the generation of a performance ob jective, the purpose of the study model was to present the functions, interrelationships, and the various inputs in a perspective that would clearly depict what the mission profile was doing. The entire study model was pictured in Figure 11 with each function identified by the same 99 numeration used in the mission profile. For greater clarity, Stage I and Stage II of the study model were pre sented separately as Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively; both the numeration and the headings from the mission pro file were used to identify each function. Figure 11 alone or Figures 12 and 13 together could be used with the mission profile and the appendices to generate performance obj ectives. Analysis of the Study Model As the end product of this study, the study model was a synthesis of the component parts and pertinent plans and theories discussed in Chapter III, the methodology. These component parts and plans and theories were them selves selected from alternatives and developmental sources described in Chapter II, the review of the related litera ture. The related literature, in turn, was the initial follow-up in implementing Chapter I, the statement of the problem and its dimensions. With the construction of the study model, the essential aim of the study was achieved; the remainder of the study was commentary on this achievement. From this point in the study, an analysis of the new entity, the ' study model, was undertaken to establish its identity as a potentially functional educational tool, or to reveal its inadequacy as a concept leading to a dead end. Either 100 ACCOMPLISHES FUNCTIONS KEY REPRESENTATIVE PANEL I . O , 2 . 1 , 3 . 1 COORDINATING COMMITTEE 2.2,3.2,4.0 ACTIVATOR STAGE I I DECISION POINT DIRECTIONAL FLOW APPENDIX INPUT ACTIVATOR INPUT OUTPUT OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES 8.3 9.2 5.0 1 . 0 6.2 6.4 * 6.3 2 .0 7.2 7.3 7.0 3.2 3.0 8.3 8.2 4.2 8.4 4.0 8.5 8.0 STAGE I SETTING GOAL PRIORITIES STAGE H GENERATING OBJECTIVES FIGURE II AN OBJECTIVE-GENERATING MODEL ACCOMPLISHES FUNCTIONS REPRESENTATIVE PANEL I.O,2.1,3,1 COORDINATING COMMITTEE 2.2 ,3.2,4.0 KEY ^ DECISION POINT C> APPENDIX INPUT DIRECTIONAL FLOW SELECTING AN INITIAL SET OF GOALS I SUBMITTING STATEMENTS 1. 2.1 ACCEPTING PREWRITTEN GOALS 1 . 1 A LISTING CLUSTERS 1 . 2.2 1.2 1 . 0 RANKING GOALS 2.1 CALCULATING MEDIANS 2.2 DETERMINING INITIAL GOAL RANKINGS 2 .0 RANKING PROGRESS 3.1 CALCULATING MEDIANS 3 .2 DETERMINING DEGREE OF GOAL ATTAINMENT 3 .0 CALCULATING DISCREPANCIES 4.1 * LISTING GOAL PRIORITIES 4 .2 DETERMINING PRIORITY OF GOALS 4.0 FIGURE 12 101 STAGE H AN O B JECTIV E-G EN ERA TIN G MODEL STAGE I KEY DIRECTIONAL FLOW OUTPUT OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES * 102 ACTIVATOR INPUT APPENDIX INPUT INCREASING THE SPECIFICITY OF GOALS SELECTING PRIORITY GOAL 45^ I aF S . I SELECTING GOAL SELECTING MAJOR ELEMENTS s 3 HEADINGS g 2 4cj^ COMPOSING TAXONOMICALLY- ORIENTED PHRASES SELECTING CLASSIFICATIONS 6 . 1 E LISTING INFINITIVES AND OBJECTS yv 62 SELECTING PAIRS 6.4 T if PAIRING INFINITIVES AND OBJECTS 6.3 REPLACING OBJECT8 SPECIFIC T.Z * SELECTING SPECIFIC PAIRS 7.3 INCREASING SPECIFICITY OF PHRASES I ACCUMULATING A BANK OF OBJECTS 7. 1 COMPOSING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES LISTING ELEMENT8 SUPPLYING ELEMENTS FROM MODEL 8. 2 B . l a.o 6.0 7.0 SUPPLYING ELEMENTS FROM ACTIVATOR e.S REPHRASING AND REORDERING e>4 WRITING OBJECTIVES B.B B.O V FIGURE 13 AN OBJECTIVE-GENERATING MODEL : STAGE H 103 result would support justification for the study. The former would be self-evident justification; the latter result would remove this alternative for generating per formance objectives from future consideration. The analysis of the study model was approached from two perspectives: (a) the degree to which the study model matched the dimensions of its own developmental plan, and (b) the credibility of the study model In terms of the study’s dimensions. These two perspectives permitted both a closeup and a long range view of the study model. The Study Model in Terms of Its Own Developmental Plan The developmental plan for the study model was pictured in five parts: (a) the gross mission statement, (b) the limitations, (c) the constraints, (d) the mission profile, and (e) the relationships and interactions within the mission profile. The analysis matched the study model against each of these parts. Gross mission statement. "To develop a model which will generate objectives from goals or goal indica tors." Six goal statements amplifying the gross mission statement were focused on the study model. 1. To translate goals or goal indicators into performance objectives. Appendix B, the Activator's Worksheet, provided 104 an example of how this was accomplished. 2. To show a logical relationship between goals or goal indicators and objectives derived from these goals or goal indicators. The example used in Appendix B, the activator's worksheet, showed how Appendices C, D, and E could be used in sequence to follow alternative logical paths from goals or goal indicators to performance objectives. 3. To guide the formulation of performance objectives relevant to goals or goal indicators. Appendix B guided the formulation of performance objectives from elements derived from goals or goal indicators. 4. To provide a framework model which could be adapted for use in other districts. The study model's sequence of functions permitted a latitude in goals or goal indicators limited only by the instrumentations used. These instrumentations may be con sidered replaceable components of the study model. Their replaceability, however, would extend only to other in strumentations with similar characteristics, e.g., Appen dix C could be replaced only by another instrumentation in which goals or goal indicators are reworded to a similar degree of specificity. In like manner, the activator can be considered a replaceable component of the study model. Each replacement activator, making judgments 105 and selections from his own unique perspective, would embody a limitation of the generating model of which he was a component. 5. To assist in the evaluation of goals and goal indicators. In terms of the community's priorities, Stage I of the study model outlined in detail the procedures for evaluating goals and goal indicators. 6. To provide documentary support for a school district's efforts to achieve accountability. If performance objectives generated by the study model were accepted as relevant to a school district's goals, one measure of accountability would be the degree to which those objectives had been met. Limitations. Five limitations of the study model were examined: 1. The derived objectives will have intrinsic educational value. 2. The derived objectives will be economically feasible to achieve. 3. The derived objectives will not violate legal limitations on school operations. 4-. The derived objectives will not violate community mores. 5. The derived objectives will be appropriate for the maturity level of the learners. 106 The first four limitations called for value judg ments by the activator, whose interaction at function 7.1 made him a component of the study model. The activator’s input, selected from his own bank of specific direct ob jects, involved a value judgment on his part. Performance objectives generated by the study model thus could be viewed as a valid exercise in making value judgments. The fifth limitation, also based on the activator's judg ment , received special guidance from one section of Appendix F, the learner element. Constraints. Five constraints upon the study model were imposed because of practical necessity: 1. SEO would supply the goals or goal indicators to test the study model. In order to test the study model with goals organized within some kind of philosophical framework, a decision was made to use a set of goals already composed rather than a collection of goals from various sources. SEO, based on the philosophy of USDESEA, the organization which was the focus of this study, was the natural choice. 2. The study model could be activated by one person. As discussed in Chapter III, the objective- generating part of the study model, Stage II, was activated by one person. Stage I, the setting of goal priorities, utilized the Delphi Technique which required group 107 behavior. Compliance with this constraint depends upon the interpretation given to the study model’s stages. If Stage I were viewed as the necessary processing of goal in put prior to its entry into Stage II, where the generating process began, then the constraint would be met. If Stage I were included as part of the objective-generating study model, then the constraint would not be met. 3. The study model would generate objectives mainly in the cognitive and affective domains. Appendix E listed terms classified only in the cognitive and affective domains. A comparable list of terms for the psychomotor domain was not as clearly cate gorized. In addition, Barro's statement that performance objectives would be most easily generated at the elementary level and in certain areas of the cognitive and affective domains lent support for the acceptance of this constraint, as well as constraint 4. 4. The study model would generate objectives mainly at the elementary level. Barrors statement concerning the preceding con straint is again cited. Additionally, Appendices C and D were adapted for the elementary level. No similarly appropriate instrumentations were identified for higher learning levels. 5. The study model would use the following resources: (a) CSE’s Outline of 145 Goals of Elementary 108 Education, (b) Metfessel's Instrumentation of Bloom’s and Krathwohl’s Taxonomies for the Writing of Performance Ob jectives, and (c) six elements based on EPIC's format for Writing Performance Objectives, All three resources were adapted for use in Appendices C, D, E, and F. Mission profile. The mission profile was the study model in outline form. It specified in greater de tail what the study model depicted schematically. The activation of the study model required that the mission profile be used to amplify and implement the functions as directed by the study model. Relationships and interactions within the mission profile. The relationships and interactions within the mission profile constituted, together with the stated functions, the substance of the study model. The Study Model in Terms of the Study's Dimensions An analysis of the study model from a larger perspective than the foregoing developmental plan was found in the limitations and constraints of the entire study. These limitations and constraints were established in Chapter I. Limitations. Seven limitations of the study were examined: 1. The goals and goal indicators drawn from SEO 109 may not be suitable for transformation into the form re quired for processing by the study model. The example in Appendix B illustrating the gener ation of a performance objective was taken from a SEO goal indicator. The organization of SEO, guided by Bloom's and Krathwohl's taxonomies, reflected the adequacy of SEO's goals and goal indicators for processing by the study model. 2. The essential content of SEO's goals or goal indicators may be altered or lost in the transformation process. Selection of the instrumentations used in the study model was based, in part, upon the criterion that the instrumentations would contribute to changes for greater specificity without violating SEO's basic content. Although each instrumentation became a limitation of the study model, the selection reflected the tacit assumption that the instrumentation did indeed meet the stated criterion. 3. The study model may be partially successful; it may generate certain types of objectives and be unsuitable for others. This limitation was reflected in constraints 3 and 4 of the study model. The selection of instrumenta tions which were directed toward the cognitive and affec tive domains at the elementary level immediately precluded 110 the use of these same instrumentations, and the use of the study model itself, for generating objectives for the psychomotor domain and for higher educational levels. 4. SEO's goals and goal indicators may lack those elements which are essential to the process for generating objectives. The success of the study model in the example described in Appendix B rejected the validity of this limitation. 5. The techniques utilized in the study model for generating objectives may be inadequate to the task. This limitation was invalidated by the example described in Appendix B. 6. Weaknesses in any element of the study model could affect its total functioning. Almost a truism, this statement was accepted as a valid limitation for this study. The delimitations of the study model's instrumentations, as described in limitation 3 above, may be considered weaknesses of the study model itself, i.e. , the study model could not generate objectives in those areas not adequately treated by the instrumenta tions selected. 7. The entire approach adopted for this study may be totally ineffective. The success of the example illustrated in Appendix B rejected this statement as a valid limitation. Ill Of the seven limitations of the study enumerated in Chapter I, only limitations 3 and 6 above were accepted as valid for the study model. Constraints. Two constraints were placed upon the study. 1. This study was delimited to the goals and goal indicators contained in SEO. The study model's success in generating objectives was considered for SEO inputs only. The study model's im plications for generalizeability beyond the use of SEO are examined in Chapter V. 2. This study was delimited to the development of the proposed study model, including the procedures for processing SEO's goals and goal indicators. No tests of the study model were made beyond its adequacy for use with SEO. Implications for generaliz- ability to other goal inputs were based on the study model's ability to accept SEO inputs. The foregoing analysis matched the study model against the specifications established in its own develop mental plan, and against the study itself. Each limitation and constraint, both for the developmental plan and for the study, was focused separately on the study model. This analysis served to establish the study model's identity as a true outcome of the study. The significance of the study model beyond the dimensions of the study is 112 examined in Chapter V. CHAPTER V EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The preceding chapter established the study model as a direct outcome of the first three chapters. Examina tion of the study model in terms of the limitations and constraints of both the study model's developmental plan and the study itself indicated the purpose and the worth of the study model. An approach similar to the one used in Chapter IV for analyzing the study model was used in this chapter for evaluating the study. The evaluation of the study was made in terms of the eight significant implications of the study which were enumerated in Chapter I. These eight implications were stated in terms of the possible success or failure of the study. Each implication was used to evaluate the study from either of two perspectives: (a) the success of the study itself, and (b) the guidance offered by the study for further educational research. The first perspective closed the book upon this study as a research effort; the second gave this study value beyond its own parameters. 1. Performance objectives from a generating model would be relevant to goals and goal indicators used 113 114 in the study model. Justification for using such objec tives would thus be automatic and self-evident. The relevance of an objective to a goal is a matter of human judgment. In Chapter II, most of the re ported techniques for developing objectives were found to involve human judgment based on group consensus. The factor of judgment was also part of the process of gener ating objectives by means of the study model. One essen tial difference between objectives derived from the study model and objectives developed by the techniques discussed in Chapter II was the process by which goal-objective relevance was judged. In the study model, the logical relationship between goal and objective was specified through a sequence of functions which automatically met the criteria for establishing relevance. In the techniques using group consensus, the determination of relevance in volved judgment based on varying individual interpretations of the same criteria. The use of the study model thus permitted a higher degree of consistency in making judg ments of relevance. 2. The emergence of objectives that might have been otherwise overlooked would demonstrate one of the benefits of the study model. As noted in Chapter IV, the study model’s ability to generate objectives was limited by the instrumentations incorporated in the model. Another limitation of the 115 study model was the activator himself. The availability of acceptable alternative instrumentations and alternative activators was deemed a measure of the study model’s versatility in generating objectives. At the study model's present level of development, the model appeared to have one major advantage over consensus-type techniques for generating objectives; given the same input, the methodical procedures of a generating model were more likely to pro duce a greater number of relevant objectives. Using only the data contained in Appendices C, D, E, and F, an activator could probably derive more model-generated ob jectives from the same goals than could be produced by a writer of objectives using consensus-type techniques. The basic format for generating the objective illustrated in Appendix B could be used to generate other similar objectives by substituting, in various combina tions, the acceptable alternative words and phrases devel oped in the transformational process. A wide range of such acceptable alternatives could thus result in literally hundreds of related objectives, all relevant to the same goal. Objectives which had been overlooked might well be found within a large number of goal-relevant model generated objectives. 3. The existence of desirable objectives which the study model had failed to generate might indicate the necessity for a reexamination of USDESEA’s philosophy and goals. The significance of this implication could not be determined at this point in the study model's development. Extensive testing of the study model with SEO, followed by a comparison of the model-generated objectives with objec tives drawn from other sources, would be necessary before any conclusions could be drawn regarding the adequacy of USDESEA's philosophy and goals. 4. The techniques utilized would have applica bility beyond the parameters of this study for educational systems desiring to create and use a similar model to generate their own objectives. All of the relationships and interactions of the study model were deemed exportable to other educational systems for the generation of objectives. The replaceable components of the study model, i.e., the instrumentations and special inputs from SEO, were most likely not appro priate for export. Replacement instrumentations and special inputs would be selected on the basis of (a) appropriateness for the particular educational system, and (b) functional capability in meeting the exportable generating model's objectives, limits, and constraints. 5. If the study model were unsuccessful, this study might serve as a point of departure in the develop ment of a successful model by some other method of effecting the generation of objectives. 117 In Chapter IV, the analysis of the study model re vealed no clear indication of success or failure. How well the study model met the criteria against which it was matched was shown to be, in certain respects, a matter of interpretation and judgment. Efforts to improve the study model's objective-generating capabilities with respect to those criteria which the analysis in Chapter IV found to be inconclusive might prove to be a worthwhile and chal lenging research study. 6. The ineffectiveness of the particular ap proach adopted for this study might suggest other approaches. The limitations of the study model may be inter preted as indicators of its ineffectiveness; as the limita tions were overcome, performance would become more effec tive. The most likely area for surmounting the study model's limitations, and thus increasing its effectiveness, appeared to be in the model's adaptability for export to other educational systems. A major obstacle to exporta bility of the study model lay In the inappropriateness of the replaceable components; the very nature of the study model required that these replaceable components be selected to meet the specific needs of the educational system concerned. The designation of replaceability assigned to the components was a tacit admission of their limitation. Though the components were acceptable for 118 the study model's operation with SEO inputs, they might not be suitable for use with specified inputs from other educa tional systems. If the study model were to be exportable, the components which were inappropriate for export would have to be readily replaceable. A need was evident for a stock or bank of replace able components which could be inserted into the study model to adapt it for use with other goals or goal indica tors ; no one replaceable component was appropriate for all inputs. At this time, instrumentations available for use as replacement components for the study model were few in number. The achievement of an adequate stock or bank of replaceable components would require time-consuming re search and extensive development before the study model could be considered truly exportable. Although the creation of a bank of replaceable components might improve the study model's exportability, such a bank would not overcome the limitation inherent in a manual search for suitable replacements. True exporta bility could be achieved only through computerization. The limited capacity of a manual search through a bank of replaceable components such as Appendices C, D, or E, of this study, would be replaced by the practically infinite capacity of a computerized store of components. The relatively unlimited scope of an objective-generating model using computerized banks of components warrants 119 further research. The present level of the study model's development embodies deficiencies which computerization might well overcome. 7. The inadequacy of SEO in providing the req uisite goal characteristics to be used in the study model might serve as a point of departure for the formation of other more adequate goals and goal indicators. Before using the study model as a criterion for measuring the adequacy of goal characteristics, a deter mination of the study model’s intrinsic value had to be established. This study included an attempt to make such a determination; at this time, the findings were incon clusive. The study model did not qualify as a valid criterion for the measurement of goal characteristics. 8. Implications 5, 6, and 7 would lend signifi cance to this study as needed research under Fox's (1969) label of "productive failure." Barnes (1964) offered moral support for this position by suggesting that more was to be learned from reasons why some hypothesis failed than might be learned from a supposedly successful study. Discussion concerning implications 5, 6, and 7 testified to the need for continued investigation. Whether or not the study model was judged to be a success, the study itself seemed to warrant such an evaluation both for the achievement of an objective-generating model and for the opportunities offered for further research. The 120 success of the study model may be accepted, questioned, or rejected: 1. If the success of the study model is acknowl edged, then the success of the study becomes self-evident. 2. If the success of the study model is termed inconclusive, then the recommendations for further research are justified and the value of the study is reinforced. 3. If the success of the study model is denied, then implication 8 becomes significant, once more providing support for the worth of the study. Evaluation Summary This study was aimed at the general area of goals and objectives, with particular emphasis on the effort to establish a strategy, i.e., the study model, that would generate performance objectives from educational goals. The review of the related literature had re vealed no device capable of generating performance objec tives from goals. Components of an objective-generating model were identified from the review of the related liter ature and a preliminary study model was constructed. After changes recommended by a panel of evaluators had been made, the final study model was analyzed and evaluated. Finally, the entire study was summarized and evaluated in terms of its initial goals and objectives. The evaluation of the study from either of two 121 perspectives, (a) the success of the study itself, and (b) the directions it suggested for further research, indicated that the latter might prove to be more productive. No matter how effectively performance objectives were gener ated, only the use of the study model by educators could confirm the value of the study itself. In its present design, the study model was too unwieldy for use except by trained activators. Additional research is required to make the study model more functional and easier to operate by (a) helping the activator to acquire needed specified skills, or (b) reducing the scope of the acti vator’s involvement in the generating process by increasing the importance of the other components of the study model. Ideally, the study model should generate objec tives with minimal effort from the activator. At its present level of development, the study model requires a considerable degree of activator expertise; in contrast, the study offered scant consideration to the preparation of the activator for his role in the operation of the study model. A measure of the study model’s effectiveness was the degree of dependency on the activator to overcome any obstacles encountered during the generating process, as well as to make up for any deficiencies in other compo nents. As the study model’s remaining components became more effective, the activator's role would decrease in importance. 122 The evaluation of this study offered evidence that the study's major value lay in the questions it posed for further research. The study model was presented as a promising technique for generating performance objectives. Based on comments from the panel of evaluators, and from the view of the study model as a prototype of an exportable generating model, the following recommendations are made: 1. A plan should be developed for determining the degree of relevance between goals and derived objec tives. 2. An investigation of the characteristics of the study model's replaceable components should focus on techniques for selecting and developing alternative com ponents . 3. An investigation of the characteristics of the study model's replaceable components should focus on techniques for improving the study model's use of the components. 4. Computerization of the study model’s replace able components should be investigated. 5. A program or plan should be developed that will help to prepare the activator for his role in an objective-generating model. 6. The elements of a performance objective should be analyzed and a plan developed to improve the process for writing objectives. 123 7. The study model’s capability to generate performance objectives in the psychomotor domain should be investigated. 8. The study model's capability to generate performance objectives at higher educational levels should be investigated. REFERENCES 124 REFERENCES Alameda County (Calif.) School Department. Implementation of the Stull Bill. March 1972. Alioto , R. F., S Jungherr, J. A. Operational PPBS for education. New York: Harper S Row, 1971. Alkin, M. C. Accountability defined. UCLA Evaluation Comment, 1972 , 3_(3), 1-12. Allen, D. W. , S Seifman, E. The teacher's handbook. Glenview, 111.: Scott Foresman, 19 71. Ammons, M, Objectives and outcomes. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 1969, 908-914. Andrew, G. M., S Moir, R. E. Information-decision systems in education. Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock Publishers, 1970. Barnes, F. P. Research for the practitioner in education. National Education Association, Department of Elemen- tary School Principals, 1964. Barro, S. M. An approach to developing accountability measures for the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 1970 , 52_, 199-205. Barro, S. M. Modeling resource utilization in a school district. In S. A. Haggart (Ed.), Program budgeting for school district planning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1972. Beaubier, E. W. Project leadership: Association of California school administrators, Thrust for educa tional leadership, 1972 , JL(2), 12-20. Bemis, K. A., 8 Schroeder, G. B. The writing and use of behavioral objectives. Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory, Inc., Albuquerque, N. M., June 1969. (ERIC ED 033881) 125 126 Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 19 56. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., 8 Madaus, G. F. Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 71. Bolvin, J. 0., 6 Glaser, R. Developmental aspects of individually prescribed instruction. Audio-Visual Instruction, 1968 , JL3 , 828-831. Brick, M. School management . . . on purpose. Reprint from California Elementary Administrator, October 19 70. Brick, M., 8 Sanchis, R. Educational planning— Operational or making sense out of accountability. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 1972, 1.(2), 21-25. California School Boards Association. How do we use PPBS in education?, undated. California State Board of Education, Advisory Commission on School District Budgeting and Accounting. An educational planning and evaluation guide for Cali fornia school districts, 3rd preliminary edition, undated. Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of Cali fornia at Los Angeles (UCLA). CSE elementary school test evaluations, undated. (a) Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of Cali fornia at Los Angeles (UCLA). Outlines of 145 goals of elementary education. A series of 21 charts, undated. (b) Churchman, C. W., Ackoff, R. L., 8 Arnoff, E. L. Intro duction to operations research. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, 19 57. Clark, K. Alternative public school system. In B. and R. Gross (Eds.), Radical school reform. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969. Cronbach, L. J., 8 Suppes, P. Research for tomorrow's schools : Disciplined inquiry for education. Report of the Committee on Educational Research of the National Academy of Education. London: Macmillan, 1969 . 127 Dave, R. H. Psychomotor domain variables. In Educational Management Specialists, PPBS and your school district, undated, III-3. Dodd, S. C. Operational definitions operationally defined. American Journal of Sociology, 1943 , _48_, 482-489. Educational Management Specialists, Inc. PPBS and your school district, undated. EPIC Diversified Systems Corporation. Developing and writing performance objectives. Educational Innovators Press, Tucson, Ariz., 1971. EPIC Diversified Systems Corporation. Hierarchy for goals and objectives. Educational Innovators Press, Tucson, Ariz., 19 72. (a) EPIC Diversified Systems Corporation, Needs assessment. Educational Innovators Press, Tucson, Ariz., 1972. (b) Farber, J. The student as nigger. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970. Flanagan, J. C., Mager, R. F., S Shanner, W. M. Behavioral objectives: A guide to individualizing learning. Palo Alto, Calif.: Westinghouse Learning Press, 1971. Flemming, R. S. Needed: Greater student involvement. In W. M. Alexander (Ed.), In the high school of the future. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969. Fox, D. J. The research process in education. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Gallup, G. Second annual survey of the public's attitude toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 19 70, 52 , 97-112. Gerlach, V. L. Describing educational outcomes. Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Inglewood, Calif., 196 7. Gies, G. L. Behavioral objectives: A selected bibliog raphy and brief review. Centre for Learning and Development, McGill University, Montreal, April 1972. (ERIC ID 002885) Glass, G. V The many faces of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 1972 , .53, 636-639. 128 Goodman, P. No processing whatever. In B. £ R. Gross (Eds.), Radical school reform. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969. Gronlund, N. E. Stating behavioral objectives for class room instruction. New York: Macmillan, 197 0. Haggart, S. A. Program budgeting for improved school district planning. In S. A. Haggart (Ed.) Program budgeting for school district planning. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1972 . Havelock, R. G. Experimental school networks: Theory and reality. Journal of Secondary Education, 1971, 46, 179-188. ~~ Heydt, H. J., Jr. Educational goals and accountability. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 1972 , 1_( 2) , 11. Hively, W. Domain-referenced curriculum evaluation in the Minnemast project. Monograph to be published by the Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1973. House, J. E. Can the student participate in his own destiny? Educational Leadership, 1970, 28_, 442-445. Ianni, F. A. J. Forword to L. A. Hart, The classroom disaster. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1969. Instructional Objectives Exchange (IOX). Collections of instructional objectives. Los Angeles, 1970. Jenkins, J. R., 6 Deno, S. L. A model for instructional objectives. Educational Technology, 1970, 10(12), 11-16. Kaufman, R. A. System approaches to education: Discussion and attempted, integration. In P. K. Piele, T. L. Eidell, £ S. C. Smith (Eds.), Social and technological change: Implications for education. Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 197 0. Kaufman, R. A. A possible integrative model for the systematic and measurable improvement of education. American Psychologist, 1971, 2_6_, 250-256. 129 Kearney, N. C., 8 Cook, W. W. Curriculum. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillan, 1960, 358-365. Kimball, R. B. Educational philosophy and behavioral ob jectives. The Clearing House, 1971, J45, 496-500 . Klohr, P. R. Needed: A framework of theory. Educational Leadership, 1959 , 1_7, 49-52. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., 8 Masia, B. B. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. . Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: McKay, 1964. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., 8 Masia, B.B. Stating ob jectives appropriately for program, for curriculum, and for instructional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 1965 , JL6_, 83-92. Lessinger, L. M. Every kid a winner: Accountability in education. New York: Simon and Schuster, 196 2. Levenstein, A. Use your head. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Life Magazine. What people think about their high schools. 66(19)', May 16 , 1969. Livingston, J. A. Educational goals and Program Planning Budgeting System (PPBS). Journal of Secondary Education, 1970 , _ 5 , 305-310 . Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools Office, Educa tion Planning Center. Requirements for developing and implementing a PPBS, undated. (mimeographed) MacDonald, J. B., S Wolfson, B. J. A case against be havioral objectives. The Elementary School Journal, 1970, 71, 119-128. Mager , R. F. Preparing instructional obj ectives. Belmont, Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1962. Mager, R. F. Goal analysis. Belmont, Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1972. Mallery, D. High school students speak out. New York: Harper, 1962° 130 Metfessel, N. S., Michael, W. B., £ Kirsner, D. A. Instru mentation of Bloom's and Krathwohl's taxonomies for the writing of educational objectives. Psychology in the Schools, 1969 , 6_, 227-231. ' Miller, D. R. , Buckner, A. L., Carroll, V. L. , Mayer, S., Rogers, T. M., S Wehe, R. A. Considerations in devel oping a hierarchy of educational objectives. A document for Operation PEP: A state-wide project to prepare educational planners for California, October 1968, 1-60. Nicoll, J. W. Progress report on program outcome evalua tion— district level. Newport Mesa (California) Unified School District, February 23, 1972. (mimeographed) Nixon, R. M. The President's special message on educa tional reform. New York Times, March 4, 19 70, p. 28. Oettinger, A. G. Run, corporation, run. Harvard Univer sity Press, 1969. Otto, R. C. 0BER--A program for objective-based evaluation in reading. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 1972. Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 19G6. Popham, V/. J. Probing the validity of arguments against behavioral goals. Symposium presentation at meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, February 196 8. Popham, W. J. Potential uses of IOX objectives. Instruc tional Objectives Exchange, Los Angeles, January 1970. (mimeographed) Popham, W. J. Objectives '72. Phi Delta Kappan, 19 72, 53, 432-435. Postman, N., £ Weingartner, C. The soft revolution. New York: Dell Publishing CoT,- 1971. Price, N. C. PPBS roadshows. San Mateo (California) County Office of Education, 1972. (mimeographed) 131 Quade, E. S. Systems analysis techniques for Planning- Programming- Budgeting . The RAND Corporation (P-3322), Santa Monica, Calif., 1966. Rogers, C. R. Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Chas. E. Merrill, 1969. Rucker, D. P. The ombudsman: A tentative problem proces sing service model for public education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Califor nia, 1969. San Mateo County (California) Schools. Alternative pro cedures for establishing educational goals, Appendix B. July 1972. Scanlon, R. G., £ Brown, M. V. Individualizing instruc tion. In D. Bushnell £ D. Rappaport (Eds.), Planned change in education. Boston: Harcourt Brace, 19 71. Simpson, E. J. The classification of educational objec tives, psychomotor domain. An USOE study grant, USOE contract No. OE 5-85-10*4, Washington, D. C. , 196 6. (ERIC ED 010368) Skager, R. The system for objectives-based evaluation— reading. UCLA Evaluation Comment, 1971, 3(1), 1-12. Stinchcombe, A. L. Rebellion in a high school. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964. Strickland, G. P., Alkin, M. C., £ Burry, J. Accountabil ity: A model. A monograph developed by Education Evaluation Associates on contract from the Los Angeles County Schools Office. February 19 72. Taba, H. Curriculum development: Theory and practice. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace, 196 2. Tyler, R. Investing in better schools: Agenda for the nation. Washington, Eh C.: The Brookings Institute, 1968. United States Dependents Schools, European Area (USDESEA). A statement of educational objectives for USDESEA. USDESEA Pamphlet No. 3 52-4, December 8, 19 71. Van Dusseldorp, R. A., Richardson, D. E., £ Foley, W. J. Educational decision-making through operations research. Boston: Allyn £ Bacon, 19 71. 132 Weaver, W. T. The Delphi forecasting method. Phi Delta Kappan, 1971, _52, 267-272. Walker, D. An empirical model of the process of curriculum development. Stanford University, undated. Wiseburn School District. Math PPBS manual. Section VI. Hawthorne, Calif., undated. Wishart, B. TARGET--To Assess Relevant Goals of Education Together. The Association of California School Administrators, 19 71. APPENDICES 133 APPENDIX A APPENDIX TO A STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES FOR USDESEA (SEO) 134 S t a te m e n t : o f O b j e c t i v e s USDESEA Pam 3 5 2 - 4 APPENDIX Detailed Objectives: A Working Paper The objectives presented in the body of this pamphlet must be further expanded and refined in order that they may begin to relate more specifically to instructional activities. We can envision the development of series of objectives, each one having greater specificity. The most specific, of course, will be those that apply to a particular individual; but all will fit within the framework of the broad USDESEA objectives. A working paper that suggests how more specific objectives may be developed from the USDESEA statement of objectives is presented below. The framework in which they are embodied has been taken from Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I; Cognitive Domain, and Handbook II: Affective Domain (Bloom, krathwohl, et al). These objectives suggest a direction, not an end. They are multidisciplinary In nature. Personal Competency Physical Health. Health is here taken to Include personal health habits such as diet control and personal hygiene, community health, sexual behavior, etc. A. Knowledge 1. Familiarity with terminology in health field 2. Knowledge of health information 3. Knowledge of trends in health 4. Understanding of health categories 5. Knowledge of criteria for evaluating health habits 6. Knowledge of scienti-Pic methods for evaluating health concepts 7 Knowledge of generalizations useful in guiding sound health habits 8. Knowledge of important theories concerning good health B. Intellectual Processes 1. Comprehension a. Ability to read materials related to health (e.g..labels) b. Ability to interpret various types of health data 135 13G USDESEA Pam 3 5 2 - 4 S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s 3. Analysis a. Ability to recognize unstated assumptions regarding health education b. Skill in identifying factual statements concerning health c. Ability to detect false or misleading information regarding health 4. Synthesis a. Ability to express ideas about health b. Ability to plan a health program c. Ability to form appropriate hypotheses concerning healthful habits 5. Evaluation a. Ability to determine the accuracy of statements about health C. Attitudes 1. Receiving, Attending a. Awareness of problems in health field b. Willingness to attend to health problems 2. Responding a. Willingness to comply with health regulations b. Acceptance of responsibility for own health and for the protection of the health of others c. Experiment in the performance of good health and physical recreation habits 3. Valuing a. Acceptance of the value of good health b. Acceptance of responsibility for helping self and others improve health habits 4. Organization a. Ability to develop plans for ensuring sound health 5. Characterization (internalization) a. Flexibility in changing judgments about health practices b. Possession of a broad philosophy concerning personal public health S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s USDESEA Pam 3 5 2 - 4 D. Skills 1. Avoidance of dependency on substances sucli as drugs 2. Performance of regular Health activities 3. Moderation in eat in;; and drinking 4. Performance of regular exercise 5. Participation in competitive sports Mental Ilealtli. Certain attributes of an individual are not primarily to be defined in terras of his relationship to other people, to the environment, or to the world of work. They are not physical nor basically aesthetic, but they comprise the self-directed, internal mentality and especially those aspects of personality characterized by the terms self-understanding, self acceptance, or self-confidence. A. Knowledge 1. Knowledge of terminology and classifications used to describe mental health 2. Awareness of influences— internal and external— on mental health 3. Knowledge of the kinds of actions and conditions that contribute to a healthy personality 4. Knowledge of psychological theory D. Intellectual Processes 1. Comprehension a. Comprehension of -the significance of mental health 2. Analysis a. Ability to analyze onc?s own personality 3. Synthesis a. Ability to express feelings and thoughts about oneself 4. Evaluation a. Ability to view oneself and one's environment realistically C. Traits and attitudes 1. Tendency to perceive one's capabilities realistically 2. Disposition to view one's self with confidence and reasonable satisfaction 3. Control of emotional behavior; tendency to behave rationally 138 USULKbA Paw J5 2 -A S t a t e m e n t o f o b j e c t i v e : ; A. Persistence in working towards goals anti ability to avoid distractions 5. Flexibility in changing views but without fickleness, adaptability to new situations 6. Sense of humor and disposition to be cheerful under normal conditions 7. A favorable disposition towards using processes helpful in improving or maintaining mental health Aesthetics. Aesthetics is here defined as the domain of human experiences to which the terms "beautiful" or "artistic" can be applied. The fields of painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, drama, and dance are understood to be separately or jointly the referents for the objectives listed below. A. Knowledge 1. Familiarity with technical vocabulary of the various art fields 2. Knowledge of* important facts about major events or productions in the arts 3. Familiarity with artistic styles and practices A. Knowledge of trends 5. Ability to categorize artistic productions b. Familiarity witli artistic standards 7. Knowledge of artistic techniques 8. Understanding of major artistic abstract concepts 9. Knowledge of theories explaining artistic abstract concepts 1 J . Intellectual Processes 1. Comprehension a. Ability to interpret meaning of artistic works 2. Adaptation a. Ability' to apply technical principles to individual cases in art 3. Application a. Ability to analyze elements of an artistic production b. Ability to recognize form and pattern in literary or artistic works A. Synthesis a. Ability to express feelings about works of art in a well- organized way 13 9 - S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s USDESEA Pam 3 5 2 - 4 b. Ability to plan an artistic production c. Ability to formulate hypotheses concerning artistic productions 5. Evaluation a. Ability to form reasonable judgments about artistic productions in terms of external standards C. Attitudes 1. Consciousness of artistic techniques 2. Tolerance for new, non-conventional artistic styles 3. Inclination to seek out artistic works in which techniques have been well used 4. Enjoyment of artistic works 5. Desire to evaluate works of artistic value 6. Acceptance of the place of art as a dominant value in ones life 7. Desire to perform artistic works 8. Desire to create original works 9. Persistence in carrying out an artistic task D. Skills 1. Ability to perform musical, dramatic or dance productions 2. Ability to create original artistic works Social Competency Ethics. The behaviors included under the heading of ethics are those which can be characterized as "ri^ht" or "wrong" in relation to some standard. Many ethical behaviors would also be included under other categories, particularly that of social interaction. The term "ethical" implies con formity with a code of behavior. The word "moral" is often restricted to sexual conduct as a sub-class of ethical behavior. Codes of conduct in our society are fairly well specified by the Constitution, federal and state statutes, common law, and some less explicit canons inherited from the Judaeo-Christian tradition. In most cases these codes specify kinds of behavior which are prohibited. More positive acts are described under social objectives. The law, of course, covers many matters of a procedural nature which are not included in the concept of ethics. A. Knowledge 1. Knowledge of terms and concepts referring to ethical conduct 2. Knowledge of pertinent facts about personal behavior mu USDESEA Para 3 5 2 - 4 S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s 3. Knowledge of standards and conventions by which behavior is judged 4. Knowledge of trends in acceptance of behavior 5. Knowledge of rules of conduct 6. Understanding of ethical theory 1 5 . Intellectual Processes 1. Comprehension a. Ability to read and understand materials and messages conveying information about conduct b. Ability to interpret communications containing ideas concerning ethics 2. Application a. Ability to apply abstract ethical concepts to a particular situation 3. Analysis a. Ability to recognize unstated assumptions about ethical behavior 4. Synthesis a. Skill in communicating an experience of moral or ethical nature b. Ability to plan actions in the realm of ethical conduct c. Ability to conceptualize abstract notions about ethics 5. Evaluation a. Ability to evaluate behavior in the light of ethical standards C. Traits and Attitudes 1. Willingness to attend to ethical problems 2. Alertness towards ethical values and situations 3. Willingness to comply with ethical standards set by the society 4. Acceptance of responsibility for behavior needed to assure an ethical outcome 5. Commitment to ethical ideals set by the society 6. Willingness to examine and compare 7. Flexibility in accepting new ethical codes when changes in standards of conduct are needed S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s USDESEA Para 3 5 2 - 4 D. behavior 1. Conformity' in actual behavior to ethical standards such as honesty, goodness, performance of commitments, etc. Social Interaction. The dimension of social interaction comprehends the kinds of behavior which occur when people interact with each other in family, community, national and institutional contexts. It is not identical with the social studies or social sciences which are commonly cited as including geography, history, economics, political science, sociology, and anthropology, although many concepts from these fields are useful in shaping social behavior Social interaction objectives overlap ethical objectives, or perhaps even include them. A. Knowledge 1. Familiarity with terminology in the social field 2. Knowledge of specific facts useful in social interaction 3. Knowledge of social conventions, amenities, customs, rituals 4. Familiarity with our cultural heritage 5. Knowledge of trends in social and cultural events 6. Knowledge of classification and problems important in social relations 7. Knowledge of criteria by which social actions are judged 8. Knowledge of critical procedures for solving problems and analyzing information in the social field 9. Knowledge of social principles 10. Knowledge of social theory B. Intellectual Processes 1. Comprehension a. Ability to comprehend written and spoken communications dealing with social matters b. Ability to understand figurative and emotional expressions concerning social events c. Ability to interpret various types of social data d. Skill in dealing with implications and consequences of social data 2. Application a. Ability to apply abstract social concepts and theories from particular~events 142 USDESEA Pam 3 5 2 - 4 S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s 3. Analysis a. Ability to recognize unseated assumptions. Skill in separating factual elements in statements from non-factual b. Skill in connecting interrelationship among the ideas in a passage c. Ability to recognize techniques■such as those used in propaganda and place proper value on them 4. Synthesis a. Ability to put together a well-organized exposition of social ideas b. Ability to plan an operation of a social nature c. Ability to formulate appropriate hypotheses concerning solution of a social problem 5. Evaluation a. Ability to assess general probability of accuracy in reporting facts b. Ability to identify fallacies in argument c. Ability to make effective comparison of major social theories C. Attitudes 1. Receiving a. Awareness of the need for sympathetic attention to social problems b. Attention to others when they speak c. Tolerance of diverse social patterns 2. Responding a. Willingness to cooperate with reasonable social rules and conventions b. Commitment to acquaint oneself with significant current issues in social and political affairs c. Enjoyment in dealing with social problems 3. Valuing a. Readiness to examine varied viewpoints on social issues b. Commitment to democratic ideals S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s 4 . O r g a n i z a t i o n USDESEA Pam 3 5 2 - 4 a. Ability to conceive useful social ideas b. Ability to bring together complex social values into an ordered relationship 5. Characterization of a Value a. Flexibility in revising judgments. Willingness to judge social problems in terms of reasonable issues, facts, and likely consequences rather than in terras of dogma or emotionally distorted thinking. b. Ability to develop a consistent philosophy concerning one's relations with other people D. Skills 1. Success in making the family unit harmonious and prosperous 2. Responsible participation in community affairs 3. Regular activity aimed at shaping political plans and actions 4. Exhibition of leadership in some social groups 5. Responsible action in respect to decisions affecting international affairs 6. Ability to cope with social conventions, such as college entrance requirements 7. Tolerance of diverse religious ideas and institutions. 8. Successful interaction with members of corporate groups Vocational Competency Career Education. Earning a living is of central importance in our society and is therefore awarded a. separate category as a class of objectives. A. Knowledge 1. Knowledge of facts about vocations and about one's own aptitudes and interests 2. Knowledge of trends in vocational opportunities 3. Knowledge of classifications of job opportunites 4. Knowledge of methods for finding new information about vocations 5. Knowledge of generalizations about the world of work B. Intellectual Processes 1. Comprehension a. Ability to read well enough for any particular vocational purpose b. Ability tc interpret complex material used in some vocations USDESEA Pam 3 5 2 - 4 S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s 2. Synthesis a. Ability construct a report or other communication b. Ability to plan vocational operations 3. Evaluation a. Ability to form judgments making reasonable evaluations of vocational situations 4. Decision a. Ability to make choices of possible occupations C. Attitudes 1. Acceptance of the need for regular employment 2. Willingness to work well 3. Pride in workmanship 4. Acceptance of work-related behavior habits such as punctuality, civility, cooperation D. Skills 1. Computational skills needed for a particular job 2. Ability to handle tools appropriate to selected vocation 3. Other special skills Environmental Adaptation Environmental Education. Although equipped with limited physical assets man has managed over the years to gain considerable control over the physical and non-human environment. It is characteristic of a well- educated person that he understands how the physical world operates well enough to function comfortably in it. The academic subjects which are normally included under the name of "science" comprehend the content of the environmental field with some exceptions. Included would be physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, meteorology, geology, physical geography, practical science, cooking. A. Knowledge 1. Knowledge of terminology in current use to describe environmental objects and events 2. Knowledge of those scientific facts which are useful in gaining control of the environment 145. 't a c e m o n ; o f O b j e c t i v e s USDKSEA Pam 3 5 2 - 4 3. knowledge of trends in science 4. Knowledge of classifications of objects in the science field 5. Knowledge of scientific methods, as processes in 3,4, and 5 below 6. Knowledge of the important principles according to which natural phenomena operate and non-human living things behave 7. Understanding of major scientific theories and hypotheses 3. Intellectual Processes 1. Comprehension a. Ability to read and understand written materials on scientific topics b. Ability to distinguish statements of fact from figurative non-literal statements c. Ability to interpret scientific statements d. Ability to extrapolate tendencies beyond given data 2. Application a. Ability to apply concepts learned in one context to other situations 3. Analysis a. Ability to recognize unstated assumptions, ability to distinguish scientific facts from hypotheses b. Ability to check the consistency of hypotheses with given scientific information and assumptions c. Ability to infer a person's concept of science as exemplified in his practice 4. Synthesis a. Skill in writing a report or otiier document on a scientific topic b. Ability to design an experiment, test, or other kind of scientific plan c. Ability to formulate scientific hypotheses. Ability to assign mathematical symbols to physical values 5. Evaluation a. Ability to assess general probability of accuracy in separating facts from available evidence. Ability to identify superstitions and other non-scientific concepts b. Ability to evaluate or "characterize events in the physical world with respect to pertinent criteria C. Traits or Attitudes 1. Disposition to use intellectual skills described in Part B USDESEA Para 3 5 2 - 4 S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s 2. Openmindedness in accepting new concepts 3. Flexibility in changing conclusions when warranted 4. Dedication- to the search for truths s u c ' i i - as the laws of cause and effect 5. Curiosity about natural phenomena and the operation of natural laws 6. Objectivity in collect ins and evaluating information 7. Intelligent skepticism in the acceptance of data and ideas 3. Disposition to be systematic in the process of solving problems 0. Persistence in working on an experiment or research problem 10. Decisiveness in reaching conclusions about the significance of data D. Skills 1. Ability to manipulate quantitative representatives of physical phenomena 2. Laboratory skills 3. Ability to handle tools 4. Ability to make minor repairs APPENDIX B ACTIVATOR'S WORKSHEET 147 ACTIVATOR'S WORKSHEET Each section is organized according to the mission profile and the study model. All key words, phrases, and statements which might guide subsequent selections, choices, and judgments, are written just as an activator might do in generating a performance objective. The dis cussion immediately following this worksheet guides the activator in following the worksheet. Function 5.1 Goals and Goal Statements Minority Understanding (USDESEA's policy directive) Social Competency (Appendix A) A-7. Knowledge of criteria by which social actions are judged. (Appendix A) 5.2 Major Headings (Appendix C) Affective 2. Temperament: Social B. Hostility-Friendliness 5.3 Goal Outlines (Appendix D) Actions: Rejection-acceptance. 6.1 Taxonomic Classifications (Appendix E) 1.21 Knowledge of conventions. 14 8 149 6.2 6.4 Enumerated Lists (Appendix E) Infinitive Forms Direct Objects A. to recall B. to identify C. to recognize D. to acquire 1. form 7 2. conventions 8 3. uses 9 4. usage 10 5. rules 11 6. ways devices symbols representations style format 6.3 Paired Lists (all 44 possible arrangements) A-l to recall form B-l to identify form A-2 to recall conventions B-2 to identify conventions A-3 to recall uses B-3 to identify uses A-4 to recall usage B-4 to identify usage A-5 to recall rules B-5 to identify rules A-6 to recall ways B-6 to identify ways A-7 to recall devices B-7 to identify devices A-8 to recall symbols B-8 to identify symbols A-9 to recall represen- B-9 to identify represen- tations tations A10 to recall style BIO to identify style All to recall format Bll to identify format C-l to recognize form D-l to acquire form C-2 to recognize conven- D-2 to acquire < conventions tions C-3 to recognize uses D-3 to acquire ■ uses C-4 to recognize usage D-4 to acquire i usage C-5 to recognize rules D-5 to acquire : rules C-6 to recognize ways D-6 to acquire 1 ways C-7 to recognize devices D-7 to acquire i devices C-8 to recognize symbols D-8 to acquire symbols C-9 to recognize repre D-9 to acquire : represen- sentations tations CIO to recognize style DIO to acquire style Cll to recognize format Dll to acquire format Paired Lists (15 selected pairs) A-2 to recall conventions A-4 to recall usage A-5 to recall rules A-8 to recall symbols A-9 to recall represen tations B-2 to identify conventions B-4 to identify usage B-5 to identify rules B-8 to identify symbols B-9 to identify represen tations 150 C-2 to recognize conventions C-4 to recognize usage C-5 to recognize rules C-8 to recognize symbols C-9 to recognize representations 7.1 Accumulated Bank of Specific Direct Object Related to Function 6.4 Direct Objects conventions usage rules symbols representations Specific Direct Objects speech dress social behavior 7.2 Replacing or Combining Function 6.4 with Function 7.1 (all 45 possible arrangements) A-2 to recall conventions of speech A-2 to recall conventions of dress A-2 to recall conventions of social behavior A-4 to recall usage of speech A-4 to recall usage of dress A-4 to recall usage of social behavior A-5 to recall rules of speech A-5 to recall rules of dress A-5 to recall rules of social behavior A-8 to recall symbols of speech A-8 to recall symbols of dress A-8 to recall symbols of social behavior A-9 to recall representations of speech A-9 to recall representations of dress A-9 to recall representations of social behavior B-2 to identify conventions of speech B-2 to identify conventions of dress B-2 to identify conventions of social behavior B-4 to identify usage of speech B-4 to identify usage of dress B-4 to identify usage of social behavior B-5 to identify rules of speech B-5 to identify rules of dress B-5 to identify rules of social behavior B-8 to identify symbols of speech B-8 to identify symbols of dress B-8 to identify symbols of social behavior B-9 to identify representations of speech B-9 to identify representations of dress 151 B-9 to identify representations of social behavior C-2 to recognize conventions of speech C-2 to recognize conventions of dress C-2 to recognize conventions of social behavior C-4 to recognize usage of speech C-4 to recognize usage of dress C-4 to recognize usage of social behavior C-5 to recognize rules of speech C-5 to recognize rules of dress C-5 to recognize rules of social behavior C-8 to recognize symbols of speech C-8 to recognize symbols of dress C-8 to recognize symbols of social behavior C-9 to recognize representations of speech C-9 to recognize representations of dress C-9 to recognize representations of social behavior 7.3 Paired Lists (six- selected pairs) B-2 to identify conventions of speech B-2 to identify conventions of dress B-2 to identify conventions of social behavior C-2 to recognize conventions of speech C-2 to recognize conventions of dress C-2 to recognize conventions of social behavior 8.1 Performance Objective Elements (Appendix F) 1. Learner 2. Behavior 3. Content 4. Proficiency 5. Measurement 6. Conditions 8.2 Elements Supplied by the Study Model (function 7.3 and Appendix F) 2. Behavior will identify and recognize 3. Content of speech, dress, and social behavior 8.3 Elements Supplied by the Activator (Appendix F) 1. Learner 152 The student 4. Proficiency by writing five examples of acceptable speech, dress and social behavior 5. Measurement as judged by a majority of the class 6. Conditions by the end of the lesson 8.4- Reordering/Rephrasing the Elements (functions 8.2 and 8.3) 1. One possible order: 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2. A separate performance objective might be written for each of the direct objects~-speech, dress, and social behavior. 3. Variations in the elements of proficiency, measure ment, and conditions may be made according to specific needs and abilities of the learners. 8.5 Writing the Performance Objective By the end of the lesson, the student will identify and recognize the conventions of speech, dress, and social behavior by writing five examples of acceptable speech, dress, and/or social behavior as judged by a majority of the class. 153 Utilization of the Study Model: An example An example of how the study model might be used is presented below. In this context, only the second stage, generating performance objectives (functions 5.0 to 8.0), is relevant. The first stage, setting priority goals (functions 1.0 to 4.0), is accomplished by a coordi nating committee and a representative panel, whereas the activator can use Stage II by himself. This discussion is a commentary on the example used in the activator's work sheet at the beginning of Appendix B. Starting at function 5.0, and using the mission profile in conjunction with the study model, the activator selected one of the priority goals (function 5.1) obtained from the listing in function 4.2. At this time, minority understanding was a USDESEA priority goal, and the related goal statement selected from Appendix A was Social Compe tency. Under this goal statement, the activator selected Social Interaction A-7, Knowledge of criteria by which social actions are judged, as a goal indicator. Any other appropriate goal statement or goal indicator from Appendix A could have been as easily selected. Function 5.1. Listed on the activator's work sheet are all words, phrases, and statements which together might assist the activator in making subsequent word and phrase selections of greater specificity. 154 Function 5.2. Using Appendix C, major headings, the priority goal and guiding words and phrases from func tion 5.1 were considered in the selection of: Affective, 2. Temperament: Social, and B. Hostility-Friendliness. Function 5.3. In using Appendix D, the chart outlines of goal elements, the selected major headings (function 5.2) were examined by the activator. Guided by the listed terms in function 5.1, the activator chose to follow the path to Actions and to Rejection-acceptance. Function 6.1. Of several subcategories in the taxonomic classifications in Appendix E, the selections from functions 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 were considered in the activatorTs selection of 1.21 Knowledge of Conventions. Function 6.2. The listings of infinitives and direct objects related to the selected taxonomic classi fication were enumerated. Function 6.3. Infinitive-direct object pairs were listed in all of the 4-4 possible arrangements. Function 5.4. Fifteen of the 44 possible pairs were selected as meaningful with respect to the key words and phrases selected in functions 5.1 to 6.1. Function 7.1. From the activator's own know ledge and/or from some recognized authority, e.g., a hand book or textbook, three specific direct objects were com piled which might replace or combine with the direct ob jects selected in function 6.4. The infinitives did not 155 require further specificity at this point. Function 7.2. The three specific direct objects were combined with the 15 pairs from function 6.4 to form 45 possible pairs. Function 7.3. The infinitive, "to recall," and the direct objects, "usage," "rules," "symbols," and "representations," were eliminated, thus leaving six pos sibilities. The activator chose not to eliminate further. He decided to compose performance objectives with all of the six remaining selections . Function 8.1. The activator listed the elements of a performance objective from Appendix F. Function 8.2. The activator selected the second and third elements from the study model. Function 8.3. The activator composed the remain der of the elements required by a performance objective as described in Appendix F. Function 8.4. The activator rephrased and reor dered the six elements for idiomatic correctness, and con sidered other possible variations and changes. Function 8.5. The performance objective was written in final form. Alternative performance objectives could have been written in a similar fashion. APPENDIX C OUTLINE OF 145 GOALS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION 156 OUTLINE OF 145 GOALS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AFFECTIVE 1. TEMPERAMENT: PERSONAL A. Shyness-Boldness B. Neuroticism-Adjustment C. General Activity-Lethargy 2. TEMPERAMENT: SOCIAL A. Dependence-Independence B. Hostility-Friendliness C. Socialization-Rebelliousness 3. ATTITUDES A. School Orientation B. Self Esteem 4. NEEDS AND INTERESTS A. Need Achievement B. Interest Areas ARTS-CRAFTS 5. VALUING ARTS AND CRAFTS A. Appreciation of Arts and Crafts B. Involvement in Arts and Crafts 6. PRODUCING ARTS AND CRAFTS A. Representation Skill in Arts and Crafts B. Expressive Skill in Arts and Crafts 7. UNDERSTANDING ARTS AND CRAFTS A. Arts and Crafts Comprehension B. Developmental Understanding of Arts and Crafts COGNITIVE 8. REASONING A. Classificatory Reasoning B. Relational-Implicational Reasoning C. Systematic Reasoning D. Spatial Reasoning 9. CREATIVITY A. Creative Flexibility B. Creative Fluency 158 10. MEMORY A. Span and Serial Memory B. Meaningful Memory C. Spatial Memory FOREIGN LANGUAGE 11. FOREIGN LANGUAGE SKILLS A. Reading Comprehension of a Foreign Language B. Oral Comprehension of a Foreign Language C. Speaking Fluency in a Foreign Language D. Writing Fluency in a Foreign Language 12. FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSIMILATION A. Cultural Insight through a Foreign Language B. Interest in and Application of a Foreign Language LANGUAGE ARTS 13. LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION A. Spelling B. Punctuation C. Capitalization D. Grammar and Usage E. Penmanship F. Written Expression G. Independent Application of Writing Skills 14. REFERENCE SKILLS A. Use of Data Sources as Reference Skills B. Summarizing Information for Reference MATHEMATICS 15. ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS A. Comprehension of Numbers and Sets in Mathematics B. Comprehension of Positional Notation in Mathematics C. Comprehension of Equations and Inequalities D. Comprehension of Number Principles 16. ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS A. Operations with Integers B. Operations with Fractions C. Operations with Decimals and Percents 17. MATHEMATICAL APPLICATIONS A. Mathematical Problem Solving B. Independent Application of Mathematical Skills 18. GEOMETRY A. Geometric Facility B. Geometric Vocabulary 19. MEASUREMENT A. Measurement Reading and Making B, Statistics MUSIC 20. MUSIC APPRECIATION AND INTEREST A. Music Appreciation B. Music Interest and Enjoyment 21. MUSIC PERFORMANCE A. Singing B. Musical Instrument Playing C. Dance (Rhythmic Response) 22. MUSIC UNDERSTANDING A. Aural Identification of Music B. Music Knowledge PHYSICAL EDUCATION - HEALTH - SAFETY 23. HEALTH AND SAFETY A. Practicing Health and Safety Principles B. Understanding Health and Safety Principles C. Sex Education 24. PHYSICAL SKILLS A. Muscle Control (Physical Education) B. Physical Development and Well-Being (Physical Education) 25. SPORTSMANSHIP A. Group Activity - Sportsmanship B. Interest in and Independent Participation in Sports and Games 26. PHYSICAL EDUCATION A. Understanding of Rules and Strategies of Sports and Games B. Knowledge of Physical Education Apparatus and Equipment READING 27. ORAL-AURAL SKILLS A. Listening Reaction and Response B. Speaking 160 28. WORD RECOGNITION A. Phonetic Recognition B. Structural Recognition 29. READING MECHANICS A. Oral Reading B. Silent Reading Efficiency 30. READING COMPREHENSION A. Recognition of Word Meanings B. Understanding Ideational Complexes C. Remembering Information Read 31 READING INTERPRETATION A. Inference Making from Reading Selections B. Recognition of Literary Devices C. Critical Reading 32. READING APPRECIATION AND RESPONSE A. Attitude toward Reading B. Attitude and Behavior Modification from Reading C. Familiarity with Standard Children's Literature RELIGION 33. RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE 34. RELIGIOUS BELIEF SCIENCE 35. SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES A. Observation and Description in Science B. Use of Numbers and Measures in Science C. Classification and Generalization in Science D. Hypothesis Formation in Science E. Operational Definitions in Science F. Experimentation in Science G. Formulation of Generalized Conclusions in Science 36. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE A. Knowledge of Scientific Facts and Terminology B. The Nature and Purpose of Science 37. SCIENTIFIC APPROACH A. Science Interest and Appreciation B. Application of Scientific Methods to Everyday Life SOCIAL STUDIES 38. HISTORY AND CIVICS 161 A. Knowledge of History B. Knowledge of Governments 39. GEOGRAPHY A. Knowledge of Physical Geography B. Knowledge of Socio-Economic Geography 40. SOCIOLOGY A. Cultural Knowledge B. Social Organization Knowledge 41. APPLICATION OF SOCIAL STUDIES A. Research Skills in Social Studies B. Citizenship C. Interest in Social Studies [Center, undated (a), pp. x-xii] APPENDIX D OUTLINE OF 145 GOALS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION: A SERIES OF 21 CHARTS 162 I . T E m P E R A h E M T P E R S O N A L 2 h f)« « l t f n > i * r I . A . D r p « * d # n r » - l i t 4 « p « ii d « i i c » 2 TEkPERAmFnT: iO C U L I. w A M * tU w - M i 163 164 ft. f*«l iiI m I it |*«*tftl k. ftMl •• 'ikftftl •ft.U .I, A. VeS*«t nit iM |t a t lat^arli k . k « i 3 . A T T I T U D E S mi l . l . i hit 4 rt n J wN 4 . I* ..* ! I n 4 . N E E D S A N D I N T E R E S T S A . V « l « 4 « | A n t m 4 C r i l l l D , U l t r m l i i i l i M i l A r l i ir<A C r t f l i I. A#fl«*4fa*i**4C tfltt t . Ph i m ^ fa l ^ l t S . V A L U IN G A R T S A N D C R A F T S 1 , J i A ^ i * 165 «. IlfftltfM I vif« * l» j mi fa* «r**l<* prttttt fa m n ik N i fa* M f i)9*i * 1 iIimJ m i fall, tttlptmt, a ilH K t n , Mt.t, fa* mmf M)fa> I mimimn, akiHMi, t r f * * ) ! , * * t , l « . V IM iM i |M A * lilM ik l|,A l|lm H |< H |k « |i|| fa r t iy t n fa* t*fa ti »«i m Ifa* M *il I* tat ttif t . Ur *« *i»*n*taiiJ mi *tN***rl** *tw*4* im m A «M *. *♦ *4 An *«Im*I w iiw e w l k. *0f**li***t fa* MMIM *lp*«1« *i All J | | W h > M h M «, A i i i Ui i IM IIIHIHI■ * 1 t* l« , fan , b ii h i h h , w l faiif* u fa* faM U mi i h t i l n i iu m I kit fa 4**al*ji n n n i * 1 atnk*tit Ih i v i It faitr, f*niihi*«i, n rU M iin t, < »r 4*1**, |M i art, *W. II m A m rti M Mil mA u fa i • . m p**4i *Mfn**llf •* a**4i mi L*lt*fi i* •* fa •*t*r> u l f a M n M lfa**fk fa* i* Im i art mi in k **fat c . M ) * r i m A U | * m U I f a u « i T*i toartliiit «*fa***» I* fall** tto* ». »**Ai i l i tl an mi arttili, cralii, mi traktMS fa i t n l i M in a t mi *fafaiH«*> i. piiKt, A rm , t u lf ii, l a i t a l t , f a . 4. | « t K t * i l fa A i it • lit**! *4 M mi itfa t * IH I IW tn ll It i i a l l n *t|< I. *«> M |f I itlilfatit* mi p* tit t* llt farlD mi III If * lilt* i. P R O D U C IN G A R T S A N D C R A F T S a. r a a iu tn m i l l fataayfc ^tMlaf fa 4ra.i«*4Atti»uM*fairtf*% i. . . . 4. *af la v a M t f mi tiram t) la U f a n i la Iran i rtaAsy I. ir a iiu t l ratlrTf far**(A l*llaf* 1. Craftl t r l u iraliilit n*i air ■ k. catt mi W it ft#** S **A« • i*4al ikiaft f . a a ttii (akrut 4. itihkat litafi fa U4a i1 n tl Arli a. 4a*i *a*4 aart t* trtfal Mitft k. 4**t m i i I > * l aa trtlal riiaji t. * * lit tW.mml Art*tf| af plait B . E i p r t l l l i t S l l l l X . taaliaft, lAtat, **4 A im ■ a. t iM in 't lr i*pfa|t fia* an —4«* k. * 1H» 1H «i+r*itl>* lAatt t* tratt* faafafta 1. G*Mi*itr*aA arlftobtr *« iW at tr**iiillj tm li** art aarkt k. t n ■ iiu llt i rppm it t* lr*4ti p*t*<li t. i n k n ItA m u l fttAwli (U fik 'tli 7 . U N D E R S T A N D IN G O F A R T S A N D C R A F T S A . A r t s m A O a A u C * * p f a i « i i M r B. D ttilf a M * n l U « fa iik N ii| 1. It««a*rrti fa* t«kt*«t aMttr, faM It, mi i4a»t I* n * n M « iM tl art 2. I t i « i « l t i fa* mmiI mi *a*ii**i I* N p t t ilit M i mi u f a i I , fa* * * * « mAh m arli tti tiaht |i^ ., all, i*H*f*. l* f f « fa R llf a illll fa » tl rW**rti i Hi t i ■ ,1 * 1. It**, far*. pattan, <*l fa K*m.UA«* * 1 Mil **4 H ntiw U f,. aw tM trj mi < ««tftt fa U*M>lt*» fa* 'hOTtferiilM* * 1 li* M il h** 4** 1l t . S u m mi 4ur«ti*t fat it*ch**t I* m iaai a a t i *1 art m tiaA I. fatr*» i*tt*lt I'rtatt*, **«t**i*t **flI *1 Mt«r trail, Ih IiA *| fat 1, I h **i'i i i it** tt|B * rtiiii tfa n a k it a ■ ! A rt t a l i 2. ■*f***ii*t m i n i iiplti mi ttn tl i . *4 ., rkutat, i***lii**«*, t a f m iW if a , Mi. L C m i u m m u i i f a | awAi at* >*t*t*U*4 •« i M a «• faUi mal fa U»4t<it**At Mfat fatrtrit*! mi u i i m l artiitlt mi fiafc* 4***l**naaM i 166 A. C la tn lic a ta tf R ta io *in | 1 . v»t*fa>««* s n U i •( t i t it m t n n < « < * f * i | * i • l * n lla illh d tut IMIFIHfdr a. t'ftlllt k. « . a - f t J . « * I. m I«I |*4f*ft«1t «l*ar • l k. **4«i iW flft i i l t t t 1 ! i i i i i t m i ’ I. ••1*1 |<*4*M*4 lU < rflM < llll^ 4M «l 1 * 1 ll a . REASONING B R alatttnal-lw plifalional R n io o m f 0 . S p a tia l R a a ta n iif tf 1 . ItU'ftS*** l«l*a*l|l*» 2 . • * 1 * « . * m I P f U * < f k 3, laflnatiaaal I h * ^ .i«* n - , U»Ih *■**«< Fit^***** 1 . tftk iriO iA i t M * f * i i . I . V .l* M 2 0 ft4 « r * 4 M > M I . F « llf l« f tl tlK lf a. a>*4*tti itll*|H a i a. .*<•*..i d M i..Mi.ai tatxiaai k , i * « > - * a li< _ « * -+ * t, i f l c t f i i i , k * f t « A < l i tf * i I. **>*■ «*■ p’ **J«ai mi m t*J**>a*i * pttiim >*l*>**»• W i*U|iMI k. |«4i U fw l *k>>*«i iM na<*(ft> «. 4.*c.'«ftl r .l.l k. 4-i|t«<<i ita ^ lti itU ia f tiit i A p iW m a. r W d . 1 -Ift. k fftiJ.fttft <aafl*i i»[*t~t*tk>«t i. a>*4*«tft a l « i i N **a*«*«*i 4 . • ft* ■ m |t i | | | 'M « t m l’|l* «. p*-< »*•••! ip**4 mi a iii'M i i , « m INftftil'i lft< ll»>« »l**l ftlraali t i i i f t i v tN I v k ■ k »F i*kU a Mftiaf 9. CREATIVITY i. F i * * » i r* < F hiI i * I , i . i * J A S p a n mti S a n a l H a m a rp 2 1*4* M **-H > * 1 C. Spatial k a m if 167 I S * * " * * * A , R « a r f i * | a l F * # i | < i L a » f « a j * I, t * * 4 i « . * ( M f i i t M K H , mi « t i M < » « i U t « a la ta l a f l i t k I. Oia m x i > i y * | n«<m iw»M« t 3 I. Hi1IM4 Uaniaf adi mi ttlfmii ■**■»!*** »»IW* »i infil I. UaAmtaadi * • kt|M t« >i>U« KaatUnaa, ai hr • *<•** «♦*■*•» 1 . tkaa aa ♦ *>*»w a N C * fiitM a ti • r l f I t . F O R E I G N L A N G U A G E M I L L S I p o tf* 1 * a M a w a> i(f> « M r mi im+rlmtd M t U i p r t t r t a tt rW *«fat>, mi a ifM » M < « i »* A * H x « i t « k a I a f l i 4 C . F lt f # * * r i n A F e r a i p L a n f a a f i m t f J } •* !< m k A t h a l a M l m i B » » w i t n n r f t » m m m I , mimwI) mi ttmmtf « mtitmf *i4h( txttltfNa 0 - W iltin g F l v t n c y i n A F a i a i g n L o n g v a g a A . F m « i | a L a a g a a g a A a ti a M la tk a * C w l 'a r a t l n t i | M I ? . F O R E IG N L A N G U A G E A S S IM IL A T IO N I . tml a I M I I la a t k a t t i n ia l b « ti ) i m i l l mi M a t i a l r v n l 1 , I m x 4 i> 1 Iw bifi * 1 6 . F a r a < f a L i n g M | t A « a i» i 1 a ii « n k i a i a t t a i U A p p l i c a l i a a mu LilLllililiil ? 1 . 1 CD 00 169 A . U w * 1 D a t a S * * * c i I I R E ^ R E N C e U I U L S L I m n l i ^ w i i A* P in ; D t u m I tin * * J CONCEPTS i« m n 171 A. OptrttiMAk a illl l > t < | n l B. with tfc- ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS C. O frfitti# ** v ilh D t c i M l t 9 * t P tte tn it m il, fetiaali, m 4 * • p«*t« t» H it ti u d i mi f« l r M « * ali 1. * ■ ■ •I* n l |i l ) i i « n l i . I n pi m i >*T t* tali h I I m Mf taldU* A P n t l m J ilii« | p>«tu*a ~>*i i*i>#•(■ ■ * n > t « ii > , i*lr« i p * th « i vrtfc ilfik n | . ) * ! • * ■ > N | n i I. n U i|i« 4 < i* i « < i(p iA i 17. MATHEMATICAL APPLICATIONS ii H i t i a m n l m in i * ! » m k t i n mi i« tlit* « n # » ata a«|fc ■ p p llra iiM ti m A fkllM y f i . A p * l * a * l< i . m i n i H i i M U m m I « ( ». i f f L i m A i « n^ ntfj m I' k. iip iiU N i < k a n l Kfci •! « i 4 i . i f p i H m a i tk a <«lv« il if u J n t l i i f i l U l m A a. H i* |i n i t f h A 172 mi mtiisjiih iriii is i ii ii iiiliiiiiiii Hit LHtHi ! X m i if Hit i l r * 5 r T ! * rr ii i! £ : ti ■t I :|! i-iU iijf Uif -i in *»! m if if L t HI iM: ii si-1 H i ! 3 * S . * !{ti tin 1s \\ H : ; s *»• r = - * f-|f ! s: Ii j : 1 • t. I Hi:: 1 I « : : r t tl! IPii * ■ “ \ J L 173 WWW [iiili i tin I !11i =1 1 i*-i1 f it 175 2 1 . P H Y S IC A L S K I L L S I . M r'L«ta> mi M , 2. h i t ) tpmi t l i l l i i. U n l i t ) mi p4fi<>*l A . M t i w l a C M t f t l mi ik kIi I. **•+« ( . **i !»■»«< »MI«f m J A IM A. 0**wp A tli» ilf - Sp*>tl**«nlK<p I , O W y t * » n b t t* » U *»< 2 S . S P O R T S M A N S H IP id l «i p tfiix llf (•••Im I I. F « 1 td » C t« l '• IpX rtl | M |M M M tlU * I i Lm I B. U t t m t h I Forti* C iflH M in S#Wft A C t n t l A . P h f « ■ * •! E 4 v < « l< « * » U r v J t f . • l e n d i n g *1 R a l e * a n d S P ie tp g ip * U. PHTSICAL EDUCATION 3. A »#l(m p*rf«i 4 . F iW i ftp»n)*<fi'il>«« ••U tlaf mI I > ti p » i« * * J i r H ^ d e a a u p M mftmttf aib l* * * Mm i J i k f i i l l x l M ip e r ti mi | ■■ 11 A * > » U P * « * I > * 4 ti U « t * irn*f mi ftm* I iL l H p4|in*l H k i Ii •r b U fM i, | < m i , mi pfcpilcet tit L L i I r r 176 177 i. M iH iiiin f <iftt t. 0«pt td V u iW w r »l|tii I Vx ibetwi tmw*n f c > > « > |tllll bi ril«f a u r i i t | p a » i i | ( M i l l 4 . a a 4 » t a a i a 4 i la a a m l t a i a a i k i f i JO . R E A D M C C O M P R E H E N S I O N 6 . U n 4 r r t i a n 4 i n | • ( I 4 a « i ia n a l C * « p l« > « » i. y i i f i ( U f l i i iW*th> •• > U < i C . R«W*Olb«(<f>t o f UfariaWlia X la a a l l a * W i > laytal ir*i A** b<>t m 4 lu |i < f i a. tidla, ITHf, yiM lfN allM , A, l a l i m c i N a l i n t I. iM tfirn aUaOM i' IN tftllll a f c a t l 1 a * t » < |* a a 4 a n J i« t> tl iltiiM tii, ia a 4 < a i i a | a - i k M n f i f » a * a i a a a J ila a l iN * h iI i m a f a ir a a l i * a a > i y a a a , H jta i » a 4 ia 't* |a , ia ia |a ) ia i I. W afltalw A ai B. R t t o y i i i u t l L a » a « < r D f * « # * I H 7 E R P R E T A 1 1 0 H f . l a ia ja a f ia a t i l f * i < t a l a lU tH T x ttnltfmttt Jtmaa .a<aa|i|italiai, Iflltalaa, iiliiaaaai Ml, 4>4liafa-ala i la«l *••• la M i| h , latafaiaat a i t a i i i x ' i at|Mii>a Ih > , ia -a w , braaabala, aai C O i t i t i l R H 4 i n | aiiaalviwif p * t a, *aaa a. aalai |*4|*Mia M >a a» i«M«aaai a»i4<«a . |p 4 f « i ifea •<< aaaap a * '|i«an« aa a k a f c a a i a w t 4aaaaaala*aaa. 4. iialiafidbai la v r ll labiaahra • •* wafiaf l« aaaaaatcatiaa, a . a * laara a a k a a l a k i a c f t , aa4a» al yaa4 wabiaf a k i L a y 1 , <>it*aat4a H1 * !! ■ * *<t«! i i a < » a a i r a l < a a i |V i a a > i 4 a « i i l i a « » a a y a i a a 4 X a ia * < a * 4 > a j C . F a i a i l a a a a l ; w alla S t» * 4 f ri4 C b i l A a a ' l L i l | a i l | i t 178 3 ) . R E L IG IO U S K N O W L E D G E * • <«»>•*. ( x M it, l««i , m J pm 3 4 . R E L IG IO U S M L l E F r . V,, 179 u s * 1 ' I i i i j t } ji JS S C IE N T IF IC P R O C E S S C S J t & . a l i ! 180 h Iiiiim I i M ^ l h I K f l t l k. *<<>•«<■«• **4 M*t4rtr t. b t l w o I W i I. triW ff MimI »*+4>, M W , — i lilt l*)U irm m « aW lv*ti<«* ( I h i h I .parti him I |>a*H h I ■af'aiaaltaa A . K * « « U 4 f * • ! S c i a f i « F a t l t tnd T a r a u a a t o i p a. t*4t*ia*»4| d« aaiil - k. h Ii i i n Wi iW a«aa (. i> lf iN a li da >aa I atlaiiaala da plaaaH U, S C J E H T I F I C K H 0 V L F D C 6 B , T t o N o iv > * »n4 P ^ p o n • f S d t K t 181 A . S t i f M I lA IK flt ■n4 Apprtcrthafl B . A p p l K * l < M mi $ < t « A l ) l j i k r l M l M L i t * J7 . iC l£M T IF )C APPROACH I, rtl tmi hai %. mUt,tm4t a « < l « W « .U M . <~i l*»»H c- —4»iii—<i p»m iw— al p>Ux — •Im aaJ W in 4 lain h Ic im i • • p a tk v i n f » jn m4 »- hat m ttttvitq, ip i»lxi*y, Jt W W W :?!! f! il iiif itli.iL t 111 t |i if 11 f* £ 132 183 A . C u li M i <*W>nlM>Mik<pt «M4f pMfl«t, ttfiM I, t»4 1.1*, k-u C.k, m 4 ..*f l.k L . . I , ■ ** ul* Ik* kailf. »•!» • > laailf » . l , i* « k . . r i , M I « I.WF, i N . i t . i M i t >W a t i n **l t k * (u i F . U i m J M I d f X f k l, tW lt, M i l » k I * t , tk a Mftf > « > 7 m io .in i k*i - f * i (•) i k . ••'k Mi IdiMi i k * p i* M ( » » i • * 4 1 . A P P L I C A T I O N O F S O C IA L S T U D IE S 4. krk*»»lri|tMM * 1 S k ^ K U w i I . I|tut<(lt| ib i l..4 l ..N ilN .W |l C . I * t « r v i l i n &*<■■! S l a i n APPENDIX E INSTRUMENTATION OF THE TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 184 T a b l e 1. I n s t r u m e n t a t io n o r t h e T a x o n o m y o f E d u c a t io n a l O b j e c t i v e s : C o g n it iv e D o m a in Taxonomy Classification KEY WORDS Examples of Examples of Infinitives Direct Objects 1.00 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.30 1.31 1.32 2.00 2.10 Knowledge Knowledge of Specifics Knowledge of Terminology Knowledge of Specific Facts to define, to distinguish to acquire, to identify, to recall, to recognize to recall, to recognize, to acquire, to identify Knowledge of Ways and Moans of Dealing with Specifics Knowledge of Conventions Knowledge of Trends, Sequences Knowledge of Classi fications and Categories Knowledge of Criteria Knowledge of Methodology Knowledge of the Universal and Ab stractions in a Field Knowledge of Principles, Generalizations Knowledge cf Theories and Structures Comprehension Translation 2.20 Interpretation to recall, to identify to recognize, to acquire to recall, to recognize, to acquire, to identify to recall, to recognize, to acquire, to identify to recall, to recognize, to acquire, to identify to recall, to recognize, to acquire, to identify to recall, to recognize, to acquire, to identify to recall, to recognize, to acquire, to identify to translate, to trans form, to give in own w’ ords, to illustrate, to prepare, to read, to represent, to change, to rephrase, to restate to interpret, to reorder, to rearrange, to differ entiate, to distinguish, to make, to draw, to ex plain, to demonstrate vocabulary, terms, ter minology, meaning(s), definitions, referents, elements facts, factual information, (sources), (names), (dates), (events), (persons), (places), (time periods), properties, examples, phenomena form(s), conventions, uses, usage, rules, ways, devices, symbols, representations, style(s), format(s) act ion (s), processes, movement(s), continuity, development(s), trend(s), sequenee(s), causes, relation ship^), forces, influences area(s), type(s), feature(s), class(es), set(s), division^), arrangernent(s), classi fication (s), category/ categories criteria, basics, elements methods, techniques, ap proaches, uses, procedures, treatments principle(s), generaliza tion^), proposition^), fundamentals, laws, principal elements, implication^) theories, bases, inter relations, structured), organization^), formu lation^) meaning(s), sampled), definitions, abstractions, representations, words, phrases relevancies, relationships, essentials, aspects, new vicw(s), qualifications, con clusions, methods, theories, abstractions 185 186 T a b l e 1 . C ontinued Taxonomy Classification KEY WORDS Examples of Examples of Infinitives Direct Objects 2.30 Extrapolation 3.00 Application 4.00 Analysis 4.10 Analysis of Elements 4.20 Analysis of Relationships 4.30 Analysis of Organi zational Principles 5.00 Synthesis 5.10 Production of a Unique Communication 5.20 Production of a Plan, or Proposed Set of Operations 5.30 Derivation of a Set of Abstract Relations 6.00 Evaluation 6.10 Judgments in Terms of Internal Evidence 6.20 Judgments in Terms of External Criteria to estimate, to infer, to conclude, to predict, to differentiate, to de termine, to extend, to interpolate, to extra polate, to f i l l in, to draw to apply, to generalize, to relate, to choose, to develop, to organize, to use, to employ, to transfer, to restructure, to classify to distinguish, to de tect,to identify, to classify, to discrimi nate, to recognize, to categorize, to deduce to analyze, to contrast, to compare, to dis tinguish, to deduce to analyze, to dis tinguish, to detect, to deduce to write, to tell, to relate, to produce, to constitute, to trans mit, to originate, to modify, to document to propose, to plan, to produce, to design, to modify, to specify to produce, to derive, to develop, to combine, to organize, to syn thesize, to classify, to deduce, to develop, to formulate, to modify to judge, to argue, to validate, to assess, to decide to judge, to argue, to consider, to com pare, to contrast, to standardize, to appraise consequences, implications, conclusions, factors, ra mifications, meanings, corollaries, efTects, probabilities principles, laws, conclusions, effects, methods, theories, abstractions, situations, generalizations, processes, phenomena, procedures elements, hypothesis/ hypotheses, conclusions, assumptions, statements (of fact), statements (of intent), arguments, particulars relationships, inter relations, relevance, relevancies, themes, evidence, fallacies, arguments, cause- effect(s), consistency/ consistencies, parts, ideas, assumptions form(s), pattern(s), pur pose^), point(s) of view(s), techniques, bias(es), struc- ture(s), theme(s), arrange ment^), organization (s) structure(s), pattemfs), product(s), performance(s), design(s), work(s), com munications, effort(s), specifics, composition(s) plan(s), objectives, speci- ncation(s), schematic(s), operations, way(s), solution ( s ) , means phenomena, taxonomies, concept(s), scbeme(s), theories, relationships, abstractions, generalizations, hypothesis/hypotheses, perceptions, ways, discoveries accuracy/accuracies, consistency/cons i s t encies, fallacies, reliability, flaws, errors, precision, exactness ends, means, efficiency, economy/economies, utility, alternatives, courses of action, standards, theories, generalizations 187 Ta b u; 2. I n s t r u m e n t a t io n o r t h e T a x o n o m y o r E d u c a t io n a l O b j e c t i v e s : A f f e c t iv e D o m a in Taxonomy Classification KEY WORDS Examples of Examples of Infinitives Direct Objects 1.0 Receiving 1.1 Awareness 1.2 Willingness to Receive 1.3 Controlled or Selected Attention 2.0 Responding 2.1 Acquiescence in Responding 2.2 Willingness to Respond 2.3 Satisfaction in Response 3.0 Valuing 3.1 • Acceptance of a Value 3.2 Preference for a Value 3.3 Commitment 4.0 Organization 4.1 Conceptualization of a Value 4.2 Organization of a Value System 3.0 Characterization by Value or Value Complex 3.1 Generalized Set 3.2 Characterization to differentiate, to separate, to set apart, to share to accumulate, to select, to combine, to accept to select, to posturally respond to, to listen (for) , to control to comply (with), to follow, to commend, to approve to volunteer, to discuss, to practice, to play to applaud, to acclaim, to spend leisure time in, to augment sights, sounds, events, designs, arrangements models, examples, shapes, sizes, meters, cadences alternatives, answers, rhythms, nuances directions, instructions, laws, policies, demonstrations instruments, games, dramatic works, charades, burlesques speeches, plays, presenta tions, writings to increase measured proficiency in, to increase ■ numbers of, to relin quish, to specify to assist, to subsidize, to help, to support to deny, to protest, to debate, to argue to discuss, to theorize (on), to abstract, to compare to balance, to organize, to define, to formulate to revise, to change, to complete, to require to be rated high bv peers in, to be rated high by superiors in, to be rated high by subordinates in and to avoid, to manage, to resolve, to resist group membership^), ar tistic production(s), musical productions, per sonal friendships artists, projects, viewpoints, arguments deceptions, irrelevancies, abdications, irrationalities parameters, codes, stand ards, goals systems, approaches, criteria, lumt3 plans, behavior, methods,- effort(s) humanitarianism, ethics, integrity, maturity extravagance(s), excesses, conflicts, exorbitancy/ exorbitances APPENDIX F ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES 188 ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES A performance objective can be viewed as having six elements: 1. Learner. The objective must define the per formance in terms of the learner where the learner can be an individual or a group of learners. Determining the learner's identity is the activator's responsibility. 2. Behavior. The objective must define the per formance in behavioral terms. These terms are an outcome of the interaction between the activator and the model. 3. Content. The objective must define the par ticular instructional content to which the learner's be havior is related. The content is an outcome of the inter action between the activator and the model. 4. Conditions. The objective must specify the conditions, including time when deemed essential, under which the behavior is to occur. The determination of the conditions is the activator's responsibility. 5. Proficiency. The objective must describe an identifiable or observable operation, or an identifiable or observable product of an operation, so that the desired proficiency level or performance can be specified. The determination of the proficiency level desired is the activator's responsibility. 189 190 6. Measurement. The objective must specify the technique to be used in measuring or evaluating the degree of proficiency desired. The determination of the measure ment technique is the activator's responsibility. APPENDIX G LETTER TO EVALUATORS 191 C O P Y WIESBADEN AIR BASE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APO NEW YORK 09 3 32 2 January 19 7 3 Dear Enclosed are the key sections of a doctoral disserta tion which contain, as part of the chapter on the related literature, a report of an interview you granted the in vestigators last summer while they were in attendance at the University of Southern California. At the time of the interview, you expressed an interest in being informed about the outcome of this study. An essential part of the methodology, approved by Dr. John W. Stallings, chairman of the investigators' commit tee, was an evaluation by experts active in the area of educational goals and performance objectives. These evalu ations were to be used in modifying and improving the study model and the mission profile. It is our hope that you will accept your selection as an evaluator, a selection based on your expressed interest as well as the position you held at the time of the interview. Please examine the enclosed materials and then comment as freely as you wish concerning the study model. Note should be made that only six of the entire set of outlines (Appendix D) are enclosed for your evaluation of the study model. Practical considerations precluded inclusion of the entire set, but for the purposes of your evaluation the enclosed outlines are sufficient. 192 193 2 The time required for round trip mailings to Europe has made an already tight schedule even tighter. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your con venience and a prompt reply, as your commitments permit, is requested. Only your comments need be returned. You may dispose of the enclosures as you wish. Sincerely, I. Walter Tunick Ralph Ziskin Enclosures: a. Information for Evaluating the Study Model (Appendix H) b. The Study Model c. Terminology Used in the Study Model d. The Mission Profile e. USDESEA's Goals (Appendix A) f. Activator's Worksheet (Appendix B) g. Major Headings of CSE's 145 Goals of Elementary Education (Appendix C) h. Six CSE Goal Outlines (Appendix D) i. Metfessel's Tables (Appendix E) j. Elements of a Performance Objective (Appendix F) APPENDIX H INFORMATION FOR EVALUATING THE STUDY MODEL 194 INFORMATION FOR EVALUATING THE STUDY MODEL Please examine the accompanying model which is designed to generate performance objectives from the educa tional goals of USDESEA (United States Dependents Schools, European Area). The model, however, is also designed to be utilized by any district which has its own stated goals as well as by a district wishing to formulate a new set of goals. The mission profile, which delineates the func tions of the model in outline form, is enclosed for your use as are USDESEA*s goals, goals of the Center for the Study of Evaluation, and Metfessel*s tables listing in finitive forms and direct objects to accompany Bloom's and Krathwohl*s taxonomic classifications. Also provided are a list of the elements required for the writing of performance objectives and an example of how the model is to be utilized. The questions listed below reflect the concerns of the investigators. However, you are urged to make any comments judged to be more appropriate. 1. Examine the model and the mission profile. a. Is the flow of relations clear? How can the model and the mission profile be improved in this respect? 195 196 b. Are any necessary functions omitted? If so, what are they? c. Are any functions included in the model unnecessary? If so, what are they? 2. Examine functions 7.0 to 10.0. It is re quested that you select one goal from the list of USDESEA's goals which involves the area of reading or mathematics. Begin at function 7.0 and attempt to follow the model and the mission profile as far as function 10.5. Use the various charts and tables provided when the model so specifies, as well as the detailed example illustrating the process. a. Were you able to generate at least one acceptable performance objective? If not, why not? b. Were the charts and tables provided sufficient for the purposes of the model? If not, why not? c. Are there any materials known to you which should have accompanied the model and have been provided? If so, what are they? 3. Please give your overall impression of the model.

Linked assets