Behavioral Objectives To the Editor: "Unhand Me, Sir!" (Provocative Opinion) states clearly a point of view fervently held my many faculty. I am troubled by some of the implications. Can Dr. Wolke help me find answers to some questions raised by these implications? 1) Why can't the ability to solve that (n+l)th problem be an objective, carefully defined and specifically taught? 2) Why can't the ability toextrapolate also be defined as an objective and be specifically taught? 3) If some amount of failure is required for the student t o appreciate fully the subject, could we not program a therapeutic amount of failure into each student's experience? 4) If a teacher cannot define the objectives of his course, can he really know what they are himself? 5) If the teacher can state the course objectives clearly, should he keep them a secret from the students? 6) Why is the implication made that learning in a course which has "behavioral objectives" is less well retained than some other kind of learning? There has been much research on this point, and the results show otherwise. Jesse H. Day Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
To the Editor: Along with many other regular and occasional readers of the Journal of Chemical Education I have enjoyed and profited from the responsible and provocative opinions, under the latter titled words, as contributions presented to us all. However, I feel constrained to object to the provocative "nonsense" assertions made bv Professor Wolke in his redarks about behavioral objective; A behavioral objective is a statement, a statement which describes anaction on the part of astudent. From that action, if the student is successful, the teacher is willing to make an inference about the student's degree of competence. That inferred partial or complete competence can be expressed in terms related to mastery of chemical principles and facts or to broader, and equally important, terms such as appreciation and understanding. Had Professor Wolke taken the trouble to read the literature (for example, Curriculum Committee Reportsl) he would not then have misinformed the readers of this Journal so blatantly. To set u p a straw man and then to demolish it serves no useful purpose. Everyone ought to know that only a few extremists view behavioral objectives as the answer to all our problems; by far the majority who use them in chemistry, a t least, recognize their utility as another tool, period. I suppose there are a few who say they are using behavioral objectives and who naively assert (to quote Wolke) that "the act (of the student) is the thing," and "a person has been educated when he is able to reproduce a certain practical behavior pattern upon receipt of the proper stimulus," but to cite these, and the other fifty-five naive conclusions as attributable to all who use behavioral objectives is misleading. 'Reports af the Curriculum Committee, J. CHEM. EDUC. 49, 34 (1972) and 49,484
(1972).
J a y A. Young
To the Editor: Professor Day poses some knotty questions which deserve the combined attention and wisdom of many-perhaps in the form of a Conference on the Objectives (not the Methods) of Chemical Education. But let me reply briefly within the context of the article to which he refers 1-2) In the article I stated clearly my belief that the ability to extrapolate and to solve the (n 1)th problem should indeed be among our most important objectives. But simply stating so, no matter how carefully phrased in behavioral terms, is trivial. I frankly don't know whether these abilities can be "specifically taught." Can originality be specifically taught? I think that findine the answer to that ouestion is an important task for educatlmal research. 3) 1 did not sav that failure is necessarv. 4-5) Defining one's objectives certainly must be done, and I did not advocate or even allude to secrecy. My point is that the objectives of a chemistry course should not be restricted exclusively to what we can teach by drill and test by computer. 6) My article didn't imply poorer retention. It implied that. even if retained better. the learned "behaviors" (as opposed to "appreciatiok") are likely to be less flexible of application to future situations.
+
Robert L. W o k e University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 870 /Journal of Chemical Education
Auburn University Auburn, Alabama 36830 To the Editor: Quoting expressions of lofty intent does not refute my contention that many behavioral objectives (which I have indeed seen with my own eyes) are shallow, are presented as the only objectives of the course, and are therefore poor education. The straw man, unfortunately, lives. If I have used a satirical and inappropriately large weapon in trying to shoot him down, i t is perhaps more defensible than Professor Young's apparent position that all current learning theories are unassailable and that they are being applied with universally good judgment. I haue read the literature. It's simply that I don't swallow i t whole. Robert L. W o k e University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 36830 Teaching Water Chemistry To the Editor: I read with great interest the summary of your Session V of the Mount Holyoke Conference on Education in Chemistry, '72 in the January 1973 issue of Chemical Education. I am a mixture of a chemist and applied biochemist who now holds the title of Associate Professor of Sanitary Engineering. In the Department of Civil Engineering a t the University of California a t Berkeley, one of my objec-
