Mager clearly lays out information on instructional objectives by answering the questions every teacher must answer: why do we have to? He claims “when clearly defined objectives are lacking, there is no sound basis for the selection or designing of instructional materials, content, or methods.” He succinctly states that if you don’t know where you are going, you can’t know how to get there. The objective needs to say who needs to do what. It then continues to break down the differences between overt and covert performances. He goes a step further here and outlines ways to practice determining overt and covert behaviors. Adding to that, he wants a degree of performance that allows both the instructor and learners to know how well they must perform the objective in order to be considered proficient in terms of things like time limits, accuracy, and quality of the final product. He finally ends with giving a couple pages of don’ts. There are many ‘falses’ that can be committed in instructional objectives. Mager lays out each one and gives examples to help steer the designer in the right direction.
Following in line with the Frick and Boling book, Mager follows along and helps design instructional objectives. Since I already have a book by Mager on Instructional Design, this did not contain new knowledge for me. However, I do like having this article in a more condensed, digital version on my Kindle. It makes it easier to refer to when I have it at the tip of my fingers both on my Kindle and my iPhone. This article did provide new information in the form of the ‘falses’ of instructional objectives. When reading through many of those, I found some that I have used in the past and I didn’t realize it was something I shouldn’t do. Will definitely use those more in the future as I continue to develop my own objectives in my projects.
I have to agree with you that I did like the falses that he added to the article. They will be very helpful in the long run.Do you think that every objective needs a degree?
ReplyDeleteHi Kristin (and Brittany),
ReplyDeleteI think the issue of false criteria is especially problematic in my experience in education. As Mager points out, achieving 80% on a multiple choice exam really demonstrates no tangible, specific competence (or learning). I'm a strong proponent of mastery learning and this point is central.
If you have a look at a TED talk by Salman Khan of the Khan Academy, http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html, he explains this point really well with the example of learning to ride a bicycle. A trainee may learn to ride a bit, but has trouble turning left and stopping. With false criteria, that trainee could get an 80% grade and, per Khan, get passed ahead and receive a unicycle to work with. He calls it the 'Swiss cheese' effect - knowledge with many holes in it, and as we move trainees/students on, those holes grow and knowledge and skills development suffer because of the deficits.
As a learner, I've always thrived under conditions where my teacher/instructor expected mastery level performance, regardless of the field. Grades mean less and less to me nowadays, but I do want to feel like I've achieved a high level of competence - and that can't be measured on a multiple choice exam where I'm expected to get 80% right.
Great post - thanks for provoking a re-visit to Salman Khan's great talk.