at%&$&z q?CHEMICAL EDUCATION R - W S q Report of the Curriculum Committee On the Proper Use of Performance Objectives It is reasonable to suggest that in our teaching we take the necessary pains to find out for ourselves what the specific steps are that we wish our students to master. To the degree that we fail to define these specifics, to the same degree we make it less probable that the student will easily achieve the broader goals of education. And, as a corollary, t o the degree that we over-emphasize specific performance objectives to our students as the only goals we have for them, to that degree we also make it less probable that they will achieve those other more encompassing objectives. Performance objectives have been touted by some as the answer to all our problems in teaching. Indeed, one's first experience with their effective use is so overwhelmingly dramatic as almost to persuade that this might be so. I n a realistic context, the best that can be said describes them as another tool which by its nature can be applied widely but to date hasnot yet been fully utilized. A performance objective is a statement which clearly and explicitly specifies what a student should do in response to a request to act which suggests (to the teacher, by that action) that the student has mastered a portion (usually) or the whole of a topic (concept, principle, fact, set of facts, etc.) or has mastered inter-relationships between and among diierent topics. For example: Given the necessary equipment and reagents (listed in detail), determine the molecular weight of this substance by applying Raoult's Law as you interpret the data you acquire. This performance objective exhibits three of the four criteria normally considered to be appropriate for all behavioral objectives 1) I t identifies the performance, the behavior, expected. 2) I t describes the conditions under which the student will be expected to carry out the performance. 3) It is broad enough to allow far different tests of competence (in this case, freezing point lowering, boiling point elevation, the use of many different substances). 4 ) Classicdly, it should also specify the minimum level of acceptable performance (determine the molecular weight within 10%, for example).
However, the emphasis placed upon the performance of the student, what he does when he responds to a probing stimulus (Identify the most electronegative and the least electronegative element in this list of elements, using a copy of the periodic table) is secondFor some time the 200 volunteer memhen of the Curriculum Committee of the Division of Chemicsl Education have been hard a t work attempting to develop outlines and statements of performance objectives for use in chemistry a t the high school and college levels. While our effort is incomplete, i t is time to share some of our thinking with d l of our colleagues in chemical education so that we might solicit your response and incorporate your ideas and suggestions into our work. We cordially invite your direct participation through correspondence with m y of the sub-committee chairmen whose names and addresses are given on page 34 of the January 1972 issue of THIS JOURNAL.
484
/
Journal of Chemical Education
ary. It is the inference from the evidence which is primary. For simple intellectual challenges (State the multiplication table from 1to 12) or for elementary laboratory techniques (Using this balance, determine the mass of this object), mastery is inferable from a demonstration of a set of performances related to the topic. For a more complex topic, such as electronegativity, or Raoult's Law, an inference of competence is always less certain, no matter how many different but relevant performances are observed. One can only assume that a sufficient number of successful responses indicates some degree of mastery. Further, even if it were possible to identify complete mastery by the use of performance objectives, we all know that there is more to education in any subject than the ability to respond with a specified performance upon demand. The total effect of education ought to be, and surely is, broader than a list of objectives, whether these are stated as behaviors or in less specific terms. Performance objectives are tools, not an educational philosophy. Whether we teach chemistry majors or pre-engineers and ornamental horticulturists, poets or history majors, we hope to contribute to the end result, to produce an adult who can identify problems in his own field and work to solve them, who can generate his own tentative hypotheses on matters which pertain to his specialty and test these, who could present an organized display of his knowledge of his own field, who recognizes that some important problems cannot be fully solved, who appreciates the contributions made by the applications of other disciplines, who has some sense of esthetic delight, and who carries out his responsibilities to other men and to his Creator. It seems almost obvious that if we did teach so as only t o achieve performance objectives: list this, calculate that, identify these, define, differentiate between, interpret those, classify, eonstmct a graph which, design an experiment to, disprove, enumerate, sketch a representation of, and so on-(all specific verbs), then we could not produce the desirable broad results we really seek. Reflection, however, will disclose our dilemma: I n speaking of the ultimate objectives we imply growth. I n any consideration of the acts of teaching and learning, we imply a kind of nutrition, for growth. No one who knows a subject well knows it in the same way now as that way by which he came to his knowledge. What is now known by a competent chemist about his subject is almost totally different in detail from what he thought it was as he learned of it. Man proceeds toward knowledge by steps, and as Michael Polanyi showed in his "Personal Knowledge," much of this knowledge is acquired tacitly from observation of how teachers behave and from actual doing of chemistry. Indeed, we cannot accurately describe the processes
by which mature understanding is achieved, hut we can, and should, describe the overt steps involved in gaining knowledge ~ h i c his prerequisite to understanding. Here, performance objectives are helpful. One can go to extremes, and in fact many object to the use of performance ohjectives, pointing out that if they are disclosed to the student in advance, as is strongly recommended, then the student need only learn that which is indicated by the performance ohjectives which are given to him, and then repeat them from memory when asked to demonstrate competence. There are three answers to this objection. First, the use of memory is per se not undesirable. For those matters which are best learned by mcmorization, of course one should ask the student to memorize and make it very clear to him that this is all that is required. Second, although performance objectives should be specific to the topic to bc mastered, they need not he specific to the details of the evaluation. (The third criterion, above, is pertinent in this regard; taken to an extreme, it suggests that performance ohjectives be written so that one can use a different but equally appropriate testing milieu each time competence is measured.) And third, if tested suitably, competence in one objective could be demonstrated by requiring that the student also apply his knowledge or skill with respect to one or morc other objectives, see Young (1). For example: Given these equipment and reagents, (some of which is extraneous and the student is, or is not, informed of this), determine the molecular weight of this substance by a method you select. To carry this out in the laboratory, the student needs to apply objectives related both to the concept of molecular weight, and to selection of appropriate equipment from a store which also contains extraneous items. Or, for a written examination; suppose that the student is told of this ohjective in advance: Be able to describe and apply the first law of thermodynamics to changes of state, particularly with respect to changes in internal energy as it relates to heat absorbed and work done. Different types of examination questions can then be posed. This question only asks for simple recall: Identify and describe briefly the two components of the heat of vaporization of a liquid, stating which component is affected by a change in external pressure and which is substantially unaffected. The student need only remember that q and w are the two separable components of internal energy change, and discuss these in his answer. This question, related to the same objective, asks for more than recall unless the st,udent has been explicitly forewarned in advance: Compare the change in the heat of vaporization of a liquid as a function of external pressure with the change in the heat of fusion of the same substance when the external pressure is altered. Describe the reasons for any similarities or differences. For this the student must recall the separable q and w, but he must also relate w to the integral of PdV, and then apply both the fixed q and the variable w to internal energy changes. Several other questions asking for more than memory and related to this same ohjective could be listed
here. Such questions can be too general, of course; such as: Discuss vaporization and the first law. If performance objectives are fully incorporated into the teaching of a topic, the first effect noted by the teacher is one of increased efficiency, and delight. That is, now that one knows more explicitly than ever before what it is that has always been expected of the students, these matters can he taught, or the student aided in teaching them to himself (to put it more accurately). Less time is required than before seemed to be necessary. This leaves time, therefore, for more adventurous expositions now and then of what chemistry is really all about, and which cannot. he put in explicit terms, where a response is expected. (These are therefore not readily examinable even though important.) I t is delightful to be able at last to have some time to teach what you have always wanted to teach! Even more delightful is the partial relief from the tedium of preparing examination questions, whether the answers are to be multiple-choice or mitten sentences. With a list of what is expected of the students, the task of composing questions is less of a struggle. It is almost as though the questions for the next examination write themselves. The time now spent in this occupation will he less than half that which was formerly required. And, one at least thinks that the questions and problems are better phrased. If the questiorm ask for written sentences as answers, these are less tedious to grade since one now has a clearer idea of what to look for in such answers. Probably, they are evaluated more objectively, as well. But of singular importance, as Cassidy (2) has remarked in the first paper in this series, TTe must attend to the needs of students as people if we are to convince them of the function of science as a rational bearer of meaning and help them recognize the role of the non-rational mental processes in science. Since students are people, it is proper to advise them of what is expected if they are to be judged successful, or the opposite, by their teacher. Students have the right to knov what they are responsible for, in explicit terms. The same performance ohjectives which increase the efficiency and delight of the teacher and which make examination preparat,ion almost a pleasure can he given to the students as the topics for which they will he held responsible. More over, the motivational response of the students to such genuine consideration by the teacher who gives them his objectives, well in advance, and tests only those, is overwhelming! The performance ohjectives described in this paper have been taken from the cognitive domain, that is, that which can be comprehended intcllectually and for which behaviors can be specified. The key verbs used include: Name, demonstrate, apply (a rule), and others such as those used to describe student behavior in the examples, above. Laboratory work certainly involves the cognitive domain, and the psychomotor domain also. One thinks of performance ohjectives in this context with key verbs such as: light (a burner), bend (glass tubing), standardize a solution by titration, set up (an apparatus), and many others. Clearly, these are important. Volume 49, Number
7,July 1972 / 485
The third domain is called the affective domain, since it deals with values and attitudes, see DeRose (3) and Eiss and Harbeck (4). Key verbs include: select (voluntarily), seek, persist, obey, attempt, reject, propose, recommend, and others. As Caqsidy (t) has said, it is in this domain where our long range effects as teachers of students must reside. Since w know little about how to achieve these, except by intuition with some guidance from personal experience, it is only possible to make the attempt in a calculated manner by working with the other domains. This paper has been prepared to stimulate interest in a useful tool. Much more should be said; performance objectives are far more complicated than the discussion here has implied. To become better informed upon the initial complications, the references will be helpful. Casually interested persons will find the papers by Dc Rose int,eresting; those with experience d l find them challenging (6, 6, 3). Others are urged to bcgin with Mager (7), even though his stylc is somewhat abrupt. The "bible" in this area is Bloom (8); tho second volume by Krathwohl et al. (0) treats the affcctivc domain. A simpler treatment of the affective domain is exemplified by Eiss and Harbeck (4). For a brief statement against performance objcctivcs, see Atkin (10); but then read Gideonesc (If), Strasser (12), and Cohen (13). The other
486
/
Journal o f Chemical Education
references are included to round out the brief bibliography (14-18). Literature Cited (1) YODNO, J. A.. Sci.
Teach.. 36, no. 8 , 59 (1969). (2) C*rrmu, H..J. CHEM 49. 34 (1972). (3) DsRose, ,I. V..J. CaeM. Eouc., 48. 676 (1971). (4) E m . A. F.. AND H * n s ~ c r , B.. "Behavioral Objectives in the ABective Domain," NSTA. Washington, 1969. "The 1969 Star A\vards," NSTA. Washington , (5) D e R o s ~ .J. C. (1969), pp 11-26. 47, 553 (1970). (6) DEROSE,J . V . , J. F., "Preparing Instructional Obieotives," Fearon. Palo (7) M*cen.
Eouc..
M.
V..
R.
D. C.,
D.
CHEM. EDUO.,
I t.n. 46 2.. ~ .A.. ,1 .. (8) BLOOM. B. S. (Editor), "Taxonomy of Educational Obieotives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain." Lonpmans. Green, New Yark. 1956. D. R.. B ~ o MB., S., A N D MASIA,B. B., ' ' T B x o ~ofo ~ ~ (9) KRATHIVOHL. Eduestional Ohiectives. Handbook 11: Affective Domain. David
(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
M.W... N.V ... "---, , .. ..,
,061
ATKIN.J. M.. SCI. Teach.. 35. no. 5 . 27 (1968). G r m o ~ e eH. , D., Sci. ~eoch:,36, no. 1 . 5 1 (1969). S n w s s ~ nB. , B., Sci. Tooch.. 38, no. 5, 4 8 (1971). Coxew. A. M.. Edue. Tech. Mno., November. 57 (1970). Gno~~uao N.. E.. "Stating Behavioral Objectives for Classroom Instruotion." MaoMiilan. New York. 1970. K n u c u r . H . , A ~J. . ~ h i s , 1 9 , 2 2 3i1051). KURT=.E. B.. The Science Teacher. 32, no. 1. (196.5). M a x r ~ c uE. ~ ,J., m n Bums, D. P., The Science Teachar, 35, no. 3 , 33 (1968). U % . n ~ s a ~ nH. . H..Knmz. E. B., Goss. L. D.. AND Roar.. R. M.. 'Tonstruoting Instruction Based on Behavioral Objectives," Sohool of Engineering. OklahomaStateUniv.,Stillrater, 1971.
Jay A. Young Auburn University Auburn, Alabamo 36830
