A Strategy for Curriculum Development: The Constructive Use of Goals and Objectives

Author(s): Thomas McFaul, Peter C. Bishop, Samrenda Singh, David J. Jackson, Jerold
Sicard and Donna Rose
Source: Teaching Sociology , Oct., 1977, Vol. 5, No. 1, Sociology Curriculum (Oct., 1977),
pp. 65-86
Published by: American Sociological Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/1316936

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Teaching Sociology

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A strategy for curriculum review based on the use of goals and objectives is outlined in
the article. The strategy involves the selection ofa set ofgoals, their specification as objec-
tives, their arrangement in a hierarchy of goals and objectives, and the setting of levels of
competence for each goal and objective. The article also discusses the intrinsic behavioral
assumptions underlying the strategy and tries to anticipate, for a department, the nature
ofconflict created by these assumptions. Issues include the tendency toward trivialization,
evaluation dilemma, institutional inertia and the political abuse of goals and objectives.

A Strategy for Curriculum Development

The Constructive Use of Goals and Objectives

THOMAS McFAUL
PETER C. BISHOP
University of Houston at Clear Lake City
SAMRENDA SINGH
Lander College
DAVID J. JACKSON
National Institute of Mental Health
JEROLD SICARD
Miami-Dade Community College
DONNA ROSE
Northern Arizona State University

T hecarefully
authors ofandthis
examine goals objectivesarticle began over two years ago to
in undergraduate
sociology curricula. We assigned ourselves what we now know
was an impossible task of writing a general set of goals and
objectives for a hypothetical department. But very quickly
we changed our sights from writing goals and objectives to
observing and describing the process by which goals and objec-
tives are set. This article is, then, a distillation of our own dis-
cussion and deliberation as we attempted the task, and our obser-
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY, Vol. 5 No. 1, October 1977
0 1977 Sage Publications, Inc.

[651

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[66] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

vations from two workshops held with sociology departments in

the throes of setting goals and objectives. It does not recommend
a set of goals, general or otherwise, but rather reports the arduous
process in hopes that the description can be helpful to other
departments. The discussion centers on two topics: using goals
and objectives as a curriculum review process and major issues
which emerge in the process. We describe a strategy for that
process and the major stages in it.

WHY IT HAPPENS

There are many reasons why a department might eng

review of their undergraduate program. It may stem
general departmental commitment to excellence or equally
a nagging concern that all is not right in the department.
be, at least in part, a reaction to the prevalent decline
rate of growth of higher education, the associated decr
enrollment, and reduction in funding. But regardless
motivation, a review process initiated in any depart
probably related in some degree to the pressure for the ra
zation of accountability in higher education. A departm
well feel that if it can anticipate the trend to account
it may fare better when the actual push comes to shove
There are both positive and negative consequences to c
concern for excellence and accountability. The general
lence of enrollment and budget pressures means tha
departments are or will be engaged in curriculum r
willingly or unwillingly. Consequently, there is a growi
for departments to share and profit from each other's exp
But at the same time, the enrollment and budget pressure
opportunities to deceptively market sociology in the int
job security, thus the spate of career programs in soc
departments. Somehow, even if only analytically, the c
tion for students and funds needs to be separated fro
concern for a sound curriculum. Hopefully, the setting
and objectives can be one such device to protect depar
from confusing job security and curriculum issues.

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [67]

STRATEGY

Any individual on a departmental committee to r

curriculum will sooner or later ask the inevitable q
"What are we trying to accomplish when we teach undergr
sociology?" and this question will soon be transformed t
should we be trying to accomplish?" An initial reaction to
such fundamental questions may be a sense of embarki
trip into a foggy, dismal swamp, which may seem to
clearly defined end. But, in any event, these are qu
which must be asked for the sake of our survival as depar
and for the sake of excellence in undergraduate sociolog
we have no topological maps to assure a brief and safe
we do have some suggestions for a strategy which can giv
direction to the process.
But there is no single best strategy, and the most appro
one for any department is the one which works best
However, this article will describe one possible str
strategy which some departments might find useful, a
others can use as a point of departure for the developm
their own unique approach to setting goals and objectiv
first step in the strategy is the identification of goals that
exist in the department. Secondly, the department sp
series of goals and objectives statements. This step is f
by arranging the statements in a hierarchy to form a
statements that move from the most specific to the more a
Then for each statement, a level of competency is set
appropriate evaluation is devised. The hope of the authors
forewarned, the route to a set of goals and objectives
facilitated.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Every department has a set of values that exist in v

degrees of generality and when a statement is precede
disclaimer "what we are trying to accomplish," a st

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[68] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

of departmental values has been made. These statements at the

most general level are goals statements. Goals statements are
simply, when stripped of all the educational rhetoric, value
statements, and objectives are a corresponding instrumental
statement. Goals state terminal values; objectives state means
to achieve them. Goals are abstract, the grand vision; objectives
are specific, referring to behaviors that are designed to demon-
strate achievement of goals.
But before beginning the process of setting goals and objec-
tives, accept the fact that goals and objectives already exist
in the department, perhaps not overtly, but at least covertly.
They are "what we are trying to accomplish" and "how we do it
here" statements that every department makes sooner or later.
Therefore, a department is not beginning a process de nova but
is articulating and rationalizing what is already operative. But
as covert statements are made overt, contradictions and inconsis-
tencies will be revealed. Students, the victims of the contradic-
tions and inconsistencies, are probably far more aware of them
than the faculty and might be good informants as the depart-
ments try to state clearly what is just or generally understood.
These contradictions cannot be resolved without at least heated
discussions and possible conflict and this should be expected
from the very beginning.
We have developed the following statement of goals and
objectives (see Figure 1) that can serve as a point of departure
for the review process. By elaborating, specifying, modifying,
discarding, and eventually replacing these statements with their
own, a department can then progress toward its own statement
of purpose. We have arranged the objectives in Figure I into
levels I and 2 to suggest that goals and objectives should be
written as a hierarchy, beginning with the most concrete and
ascending to the most abstract. The number of levels and the
degree of specificity of goals and objectives is a matter only
the department itself can resolve.
Goals and objectives can be arranged from most concrete
to abstract as their level of application ascends from classroom

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [69]

1. Student

A. Goal: Acquire critical thinking skills as part of

liberal education.

Objectives: 1. Distinguish social phenomena from other

content areas.

2. Describe selected social phenomena.

3. Explain selected social phenomena.
4. Apply the results of the description and
the explanation of social phenomena to
problems encountered in non-student
roles.

B. Goal: Acquire career skills for occupational application.

Objectives: 1. Directly observe social phenomena.

2. Indirectly observe social phenomena through
existing literature.
3. Emulate and critique existing literature.

C. Goal: Receive and use feedback.

Objectives: 1. Quantitative skill testing.

2. Qualitative evaluation.

2. Faculty

A. Goal: Create and implement a curriculum suitable for the

achievement of student goals and objectives.

Objectives: 1. Articulate prevailing range of sociological

theories and methods.
2. Foster innovative sociological theories and
methods.
3. Relate the results of sociological analysis
to the needs of nonsociological fields.

B. Goal: Stimulate intellectual and professional development.

Objectives: 1. Demonstrate abilities at all levels of competence.

2. Strive for pedogogical excellence.

C. Goal: Receive and use feedback.

Objectives: 1. Use peer evaluations.

2. Use student evaluations.

Figure 1: Hypothetical Set of Goals and Objectives

work to departmental policy. Thus, according to O'Connell and

Moomaw (1975), the first step is to develop the explicit goals

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[70] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

and objectives to be attained by students in a course. Once these

are developed for all courses, freshman to senior, these state-
ments should link throughout to determine the department's
goals and objectives. In this way, goals and objectives at each
level accumulate to form the department's statement of goals
and objectives. Lower level goals become the next higher level's
objectives until the process culminates in departmentwide
goal statements, which are then, on a grand scale, objectives
for effective functioning in society. Goals exist simultaneously
as objectives; objectives exist simultaneously as goals. Their
contextual application, their place in the hierarchy, determines
their status as goals or objectives. For example, freshman-
sophomore level course goals can simultaneously be viewed as
objectives for junior-senior courses, and so on.
Herein lies one of the values of goal-setting for curriculum
review. Any department wishing to improve its curriculum can
most easily reach a consensus about a general statement of the
department's purpose. But such a statement is of little value to
the department until it is translated into more specific terms and
it is the process of specification that reveals the different purposes
and agendas within the department. But without abandoning the
common purpose or goal, differences can be resolved as a
question of selecting the best means of achieving such a purpose
or goal rather than as absolute and diametrically opposed value
positions. A department can thereby engage in conflict with a
higher probability of a constructive outcome. No matter how
fragile the consciousness of purpose derived from the first
step, it will reduce some of the a priori character of concrete
proposals since a major limiting condition is the consensual
goal. Such a procedure does not remove all the thorns from these
issues, but it does de-escalate them to a disagreement over
means rather than a fight to the death over ends, and it is possible
to have multiple means to achieve a single goal.
The student and faculty goals in Figure 1 contain an educa-
tional versus occupational dichotomy. For the student, the
dilemma is the age-old liberal education versus vocational

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [71]

competence; for faculty the dilemma is implementation of the

curriculum (teaching) versus professional development (pub-
lishing). We propose that both sets of goals be taken as equally
important for students and teachers of sociology. Likewise,
the objectives (means to achieve the goals) for both students
and teachers are also parallel. In a sociology curriculum, students
should learn to perform scientific analysis of social phenomena;
faculty should generate and articulate scientific generalizations.
Finally, for both faculty and students, Goal c stands in relation
to Goal b as an objective; Goal b stands in relation to Goal a
as an objective. For example, if a student is to accomplish the
objectives of Goal b (acquiring career skills for occupational
application), then the student must first master Goal c (receive
and use feedback). If the student is to achieve Goal a (acquire
critical thinking skills as part of liberal education), then the
student must first master Goal b (acquire career skills for occupa-
tional application). The statement of goals and objectives in
Figure 1 is indeed abstract and general, but we must repeat,
it is intended only as a hypothetical starting point for elaboration.

LEVELS OF COMPETENCE

Benjamin Bloom and his associates, in their effort t

a taxonomy of educational objectives, developed
competence to codify the myriad educational objecti
posed by various curriculum specialists. Each level
petence presupposes mastery at the preceding level, a
refers to research which indicates students are more skillful
in performing tasks at the lower levels of competence than at
higher levels. Bloom continues to cite research which shows
that students are more conscious of their behavior at lower
levels than at higher levels. Thus Bloom feels that the hierarchic
and scale-like quality of these levels can be demonstrated.
But before Bloom's level of competency can be incorporate
within a goal and objective strategy, three assumptions a

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[72] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

Level 1 Knowing: bringing to mind the appropriate

material.

Level 2 Comprehending: understanding (grasping

the meaning of) what is being communicated
and making use of the idea without neces-
sarily relating it to other ideas or material
and without necessarily seeing the fullest
meaning.

Level 3 Applying: using ideas, principles and theories

in new, particular and concrete situations.

Level 4 Analyzing: breaking down a communication

(rendered in any form) into constituent
parts in order to make the organization of
the whole clear.

Level 5 Synthesizing: putting together parts and

elements into a unified organization or
whole.

Level 6 Evaluating: judging the value of ideas, pro-

cedures, methods, using appropriate criteria.

Figure 2: Levels of Competence

Adapted from: Benjamin Bloom et al.

needed: (1) students with different career goals and backgrounds

should be expected to achieve the departmental goals at different
levels; (2) the determination of the level to which the student
should achieve the goal is as important as the specification of
the goal; and (3) higher level goals are characterized by greater
difficulty and more conscious intellectual activity. With these
assumptions, a department is ready to assign a given level of
competence to every goal. For example, majors might be
required to achieve certain goals to level 4, while nonmajors
might only be required to achieve to level 2. Levels 5 and 6
might be reserved for graduate school or faculty.
However, rather than select a single level of competence
for each program goal, our strategy suggests two levels of
competence for each program: a minimum level required for

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [73]

completing the program, and a target level which faculty en-

courage and assist students to achieve, but which few students
will be expected to surpass. The minimum and target levels
thus bracket the achievement of most students, while allowing
for unacceptable and outstanding student performances to
emerge and be evaluated accordingly. The actual levels set for
various program goals should probably vary over the whole
range of levels according to the career and educational goals
of the students, the place of sociology in liberal education and
career training, the institutional expectations, the teaching
ability of the faculty, and the difficulty of curriculum materials.
For example, a department with a strong specialty in strati-
fication might set as a goal for its undergraduate majors "learning
the distribution of power and resources in a community." For
the majors, the department might expect that at minimum this
be learned at the level of applying or using the ideas in a new and
concrete situation and they might target to have the majors be
able to analyze the distribution of power in a community.
However, for nonsociology majors in a social problems course,
the department might be quite happy to set a minimum com-
petency for the same goal at simply knowing the distribution
of power and resources in a community and target to have them
comprehend or understand the implications of the distribution of
power and resources in a community.

BEHAVIORIST ASSUMPTIONS

The major assumption which undergirds this strategy

goals, objectives, and levels of competency be writt
havioral terms so that an observer can determine whether or not
they have been achieved. However, that goals, objectives, and
levels of competency be written in behavioral terms is only a
suggestion. In fact, each department must answer for itself
the question, "How behavioral should goals and objectives
be?" The answer can range the full distance on a continuum

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[74] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

between two major educational philosophies: behaviorism and

humanism.
Robert F. Mager (1962) and Benjamin Bloom (1956) epito-
mize the behaviorist approach to defining objectives. Mager
defines an educational objective as "intent communicated by a
statement about a proposed change in a learner." Bloom's
taxonomy, which in incorporated into Figure 2, "is designed
to be a classification of the student behaviors which represent
the intended behavior of students-the ways in which individuals
are to act, think, or feel as a result of participating in some
unit of instruction" (Bloom et al., 1956: 12). To state an educa-
tional objective is to make a statement about an intended
behavior change. It is what a learner is supposed to be able to do
at the end of a learning experience. Mager further distinguished
between a course description and a course objective. A descrip-
tion is what a course is about; it focuses on content and process.
An objective refers to an intended and visible behavior change.
Objectives are what learners do to demonstrate goal accomplish-
ment.

The use of language, according to Mager, is important in

the development of a "meaningfully stated objective." One
should avoid using terms which lack inherent clarity or describe
vague cognitive states, such as know, understand, really under-
stand, grasp, appreciate, fully appreciate, enjoy, believe, or
have faith in. Instead, one should use terms which indicate
specific behaviors, such as write, recite, identify, differentiate,
solve, construct, list, compare, or contrast. The use of these
terms helps to identify the terminal behaviors expected of the
student. If there are behaviorists in the department, they will
most likely find this view compatible with their own.
The humanists in the department will squirm in their chairs,
stressing the integralist, rather than the reductionist, nature
of the learning process. Mastering atomized competencies, it
will be said, should never be an end in itself; learning basic
skills is only a lower level prerequisite to higher level integration.
Learning is synthetic; patterns of knowledge become more

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [75]

comprehensive as a learner passes from lower to higher com-

petencies. Relationships that were once obscure and behaviors
that were seemingly isolated become the basis for integrating
and synthesizing knowledge into higher levels of comprehension.
This is the primary goal of education for humanists and the more
your department leans toward humanism, the more you are likely
to evolve fewer levels of goals and objectives, stated in more
abstract language.
If a department is split on this issue, especially if the split
is covert, be ready for some very stormy sessions. On the other
hand, if a consensus exists on one side or the other, if the faculty
are conscious of this consensus, then the department increases
the chances of coming to an agreement about departmental goals
and objectives with minimal amounts of conflict. Expect the
former and be elated if the department experiences the latter.
But one of the more beneficial latent functions of the conflict
that often accompanies the goals and objectives review is that
most faculty discover just how humanistic or behavioristic
their approach to teaching is. As a result, they become more
conscious of their own course goals and objectives. Although
not manifest at the onset, this is a positive consequence. Overall
teaching in the department can be strengthened, and individual
evaluation made more accurate and meaningful.
After discussion, which in all likelihood will generate more
heat than light, it will probably be discovered that both interpre-
tations of the learning process, reductionist and integralist, exist
in the department. The former is more consistent with the
behaviorist view of learning, the latter with the humanist view.
A radical reductionist would delight in seeing an infinitely
detailed list of learning objectives and the visible behavioral
statements by which a teacher can measure a student's progress
toward achieving them. Learning is thus reduced to measurable
behavioral units, and evaluation can be based on observable
behavioral change. But the integralists will want broad general
statements, and, in the end, a statement of goals and objectives
may have both kinds of statements. The department's humanists/

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[76] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

integralists may author the goals statements; the behavioralists/

reductionists may author the objectives.

THE LESSONS OF APPLICATION

As a group we have visited two departments in the

writing goals and objectives: one a large university d
and the other a small department in a private liberal art
In both cases the departments were frustrated in their at
review and change their curriculum. The departmen
themselves in a situation which demanded new statements of
goals but with traditional methods entrenched in the department.
In both departments the process of curriculum review progressed
best when one trusted person from outside the department wa
present to concentrate on process and free the departmen
members to concentrate completely on the content of the task
The process which emerged after trial and error in these
departments could best be described as the inquiry; that is, the
asking of a series of questions designed to elicit from the partici-
pants information that they have in hand but are not utilizin
in the analysis. In the case of curriculum review, the firs
question is, "What kind of student do you want to pass your
course and/or graduate from your program?" This question
is obviously a not-too-clever paraphrase of "What is your goal?
But this wording of the question both avoids the negativ
language of goal-setting and, what is more important, it call
for a concrete description of a person rather than a set of abstract
concepts. Typically the initial responses to the question are to
abstract, i.e., "understanding the sociological perspective" or
"appreciating cultural differences." Unacceptable responses
are identified by a followup question, "'How can you tell when the
student is the kind of student that you want?" This question
is a thinly veiled version of, "What is the criterion of measure
ment or the behavior that you expect?" But the advantage
of paraphrasing remain. When the "how can you tell" question
cannot be answered, then the statement is inappropriate for
planning curriculum since no evaluation or feedback can b

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [77]

devised to test various means. Unacceptable responses are then

discarded until the department can produce a statement that
can pass the "how can you tell" test. For example, understanding
the sociological perspective might be modified to "explain how
a community makes a decision." Or, "appreciate cultural
differences" becomes "form collaborative relationships with
individuals with different cultural backgrounds." The difference
between the initial questions and the modified question is that the
department can use the second set of statements to gauge how
well its goals are being achieved.
The next question in the inquiry process is, "How are you
going to achieve the kind of student that you want?" At this
point, the modification of abstract statements into specific
statements begins to have results. For example, "How are you
going to have a student understand the sociological perspective?"
produces responses like "by taking a course in sociological theory,
and learning different theoretical perspectives." The taking of
a course is assumed to be synonymous with achieving the goal,
and the department has made little progress from its starting
point. But the response to the modified statement "explain
how a community makes decisions" may be quite different. One
response might be "engage in a class decision. Ask the students
to describe the process giving special attention to that aspect
of the explanation which uses sociological concepts such as
power or role." A list of alternative methods to achieve that
goal can be developed.
Then the department is ready for the final question, "How
much of what the department now does will achieve the concrete
purposes?" The present curriculum can now be examined part
by part, choosing and discarding curriculum elements according
to their usefulness in meeting departmental goals and objectives.
Some new alternative methods can be proposed at the course and
departmental level and progress should have been made.

THE ISSUES

If a department pursues this strategy, the follow

will predictably surface in the course of deliberations: i

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[78] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

constituencies, preventing trivialization, constructing evalua-

tion, forestalling inertia, and protecting against political abuse.

Constituencies

As a department considers goals and objectives, the inevitable

first stumbling point will be identifying and collecting data
about the constituencies: students, faculty, administrators,
potential employers, graduate schools, and others. The first
obvious fact of life for most departments is that the student
constituency is far more diverse than anyone usually suspects.
A second, often neglected constituency which the curriculum
is designed to serve is the faculty itself. It goes without saying
that curriculum goals must be related to and supported by
the combined expertise and experience of the faculty. It is less
obvious, but still important, that a curriculum should also
support and enhance the professional goals of the faculty. Good
teachers are also interested in their own learning, as translated
into research, and a curriculum must therefore encourage the
learning (research) goals of the faculty, as well as those of the
student, in order to engender their combined support.
The review of faculty and student goals in higher education
also raises the issue of other constituencies whose own goals
are less directly related, but nevertheless important, to the goals
of a sociology curriculum. The administration of an institution
is, of course, the first to come to mind. Developing goals and
objectives for a departmental curriculum may have been initiated
in response to administrative demands or in anticipation of
administrative decisions. In any case, the articulation of depart-
mental goals needs to be viewed within the organizational
dynamic of faculty/ administrative relations. As a faculty focuses
on itself as a constituent of the review process, it will discover
that the origins of review carry important implications. The
acceptance or rejection of goals and objectives as a strategy
for curriculum review and the final outcome of the process is,
to a large extent, dependent on the way in which the review

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [79]

process was initiated and whether this initiation created depart-

mental resistance or acceptance.
Constituencies outside the institution may also have an
impact on the development of the departmental goals. Para-
mount among these is the employment market for sociology and
other majors who also take sociology courses, e.g., social work,
law enforcement, and so forth. If career skills for occupational
application is adopted as an important student goal, then the
state of the job market will dictate some of the specifics of a
curriculum. Still other external constituencies include the
funding source for the institution (legislature, taxpayer, paren
and benefactor), the community which the institution serv
professional associations, graduate departments, and colleag
In short, a curriculum serves many masters-probably too many
No two departments will answer the question, "Who are o
constituents?" in identical fashion, and this is fine. The crit
point is that each department answer the question for itself
light of its specific educational environment. Since sociolog
are experts in data gathering, the specific means can be le
to each department. However, the task should not be ta
lightly, as researchers have demonstrated that organizatio
with the ability to learn about their environment stand t
best chances of survival (see Thompson and McEwen, 1968:
116).

Trivialization

Before the smoke clears, a department probably will have to

address the allegation that the intrinsic nature of goals, objec-
tives, and levels of competence will trivialize the learning
process. Humanists allege that writing objectives in behaviorist
terms consumes inordinate amounts of faculty time, proliferates
lists of objectives which are measured only against standardized
test scores, inhibits student creativity, and reduces education
to rote regurgitation and skills mastery. These are serious
charges; every department should consider them carefully.
It is most likely to occur when concern about curriculum de-

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[80] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

generates into obsession with, or makes a fetish of, account-

ability. It is difficult to determine precisely when concern for
writing good, specific goals and objectives begins the plunge
into trivialization, but excessive preoccupation with defining
every conceivable learning behavior is a danger sign.
If this occurs, the humanist's reaction will probably be to
throw out the baby of curriculum review with the bath of goals
and objectives. This would result in either (1) adopting another
strategy or (2) returning to a directionless condition in which
implicity and inconsistent and chaotic goals dominated instruc-
tion. The most effective way to prevent trivialization from
happening is to keep the reasons for setting goals and objectives
ever before you. There are two very straightforward reasons
which should urge you to continue: (1) to provide faculty with
a statement of overall purpose in which to design and offer their
specific courses and (2) to inform students, as clearly as possible,
what the curriculum is intended to accomplish so that they can
judge its worth for themselves. The issue, then, is not whether
to do curriculum review, but what kind of review and outcomes
are desired by the department.

Evaluation

A second issue that bears directly on behaviorist-humanist

educational differences is evaluation. Goals, objectives, and
levels of competency become the standards against which
learning achievements can be measured and evaluated. In order
for goals, objectives, and levels of competency to become more
than much ado about nothing each department will eventually
have to develop effective evaluation techniques by which progress
can be measured. At this point, a second behaviorist-humanist
controversy frequently surfaces: quantitative versus qualitative
evaluation. Behaviorists argue that learning objectives can be
articulated explicitly and expected of all students. Therefore,
evaluation is fundamentally a process of quantitative measure-
ment and comparison. Humanists, on the other hand, hold that

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [81]

Natu - o: Lea:ning Experience: Skills Mastery/Routinization C:,uiti':yl isl:'i ual

Nature of Evaluation: Quantitative/Objective Qualoitatir.'b/tbje,:t

Figure 3: Learning Experience and Evaluation Procedures

all true education involves individual creativity only measurable

by qualitative indicators and subjective standards. Creativity,
by definition, cannot be articulated explicitly prior to the
learning experience.
The issue is not really quantitative versus qualitative stand-
ards. The issue and task is to develop valid, reliable, and objec-
tively based evaluation procedures consistent with the nature of
the goal or objective. These procedures will be, in many cases,
quantitative; in others, qualitative. The heart of the matter
seems to be that learning experiences which can be routinized
are more amenable to quantitative evaluation; those which
appear to be highly creative, individual, and perhaps unique,
require qualitative forms of evaluation. Qualitative evaluation
has to be based on the professional judgment of a faculty member
whose expertise is in the area in which the learning experiences
have occurred. Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between
the kind of skill and the type of evaluation.

Inertia

By now, your department has realized that a goals and objec-

tives curriculum review procedure is enormously time-con-
suming. Faculty have become "burned out," fatigue is beginning
to develop, but you do have a statement on paper. The issue now
becomes how to keep goals and objectives from collecting dust
on shelves in faculty offices, and there is only one solution.
The first try must be seen as the initial, not the final, stage in
the curriculum review process. If curriculum review is seen as a
continuing process, if reevaluation procedures are institution-
alized as a scheduled part of the department's work, then the

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[82] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

consciousness of goals and objectives, which the process itself

created, will continue. It is the process-not the statement-that
insures translation into course objectives and curriculum
changes. Hopefully, the first attempt will be the most difficult
and time-consuming. Last year's statement should always
provide a beginning point for this year's revision. But still, if
your statement emphasizes the importance of undergraduate
teaching, while salary, promotion, and tenure are distributed
on the basis of research and publication, then goals and objec-
tives related to teaching will be relegated to a secondary position.
They will exist in form only, not in practice, and will, indeed,
collect dust unless the department is willing to change its policies.

POLITICS

A final issue is the use of these techniques as tools of po

harassment for eliminating undesirable elements whose vi
not in conformity with those of an administration. When
properly, goals and objectives can aid in clarifying
instilling purpose, and defining areas of responsibilit
when improperly applied, they can be used to eliminate d
of interpretation, controversy or challenges to authority
which an academic community ceases to thrive. The poten
abuse is ever present and even greater in a multip
discipline such as sociology, in which one of the do
paradigms, namely the Marxist, uses social analysis as
the key tools in revolutionary social reconstruction. A
the political dimensions surrounding the use of goals a
tives are usually only latent, they surface forcefully w
radical tendencies within the department abut an adminis
characterized by defensiveness and a fear of social views c
to its own. By demanding that faculty prepare and su
advance, a complete list of all the objectives for a par
course, an administrator can monitor course content, and
by eliminate any faculty member who might appear as a

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [83]

troublemaker or radical. This issue is distinct from eliminating

incompetence or improving the quality of teaching and other
academic work.
First, a distinction must be made between course and depart-
mental goals. The former are individual statements and much
more vulnerable to abuse than the latter. But when abuse does
occur the processes which protect academic freedom in any
setting must be called on. While abuse is not inevitable, when it
does happen it is of utmost urgency that the issues of academic
freedom and protection of constitutionally guaranteed first
amendment rights-not only of so-called troublemakers, but of
the academic process itself-are protected.
However, departments can turn the tables in such situations.
A statement of goals and objectives, particularly if accepted
by an administration, can be used by a department to promote
quality education in the face of perceived attempts, real or
imagined, to downgrade it. Evaluation based on prior establish-
ment of academic goals and objectives can become an important,
sensitive, and unbiased index in the measurement of a faculty
member's professional competence.

CONCLUSIONS

Hopefully, the above discussion has helped clarify

the issues involved in a curriculum review strategy b
intervening with goals and objectives. Setting goals a
tives for a department initiates a social process, on
complex and, in many ways, unique to the individuals
When we began, we had hoped to produce a manua
explicit as those that tell you how to clean a carbu
assemble a ten-speed bicycle. But social processes and
carburetors or assembling bicycles are very different
A manual was not possible. But what we do offer is a
and discussion of issues, a description of social process,
to facilitate departmental encounters with the major

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[84] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

that are intrinsic to curriculum review and the use of goals

and objectives. The amount of agony that each department will
experience depends on the degree of disagreement over the issues
that surround the process, and final departmental goals and
objectives will reflect compromise over these issues.
The strategy outlined in the article presupposes that a depart-
ment feels the need for change. Once the process begins, the
members of the department must be willing to work hard in order
to realize an outcome. As a department moves through the
process, we strongly suggest that it trust its own professional
intuitions. There are no magical formulas for success in either
process or outcome. Professional sensibilities, in the final
analysis, will guide each department toward a resolution of the
issues. The outcome will vary from department to department,
and it should. The strategy is designed only to facilitate the
process, not to suggest the outcome. However, we believe that a
curriculum review based on the above strategy will lead to a
reflective and constructive consciousness on the part of all who
participate.

REFERENCES

BLOOM, B. [ed.] (1956) Taxonomy of Education Objectives: the Classi

Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1973) The Purposes and
Higher Education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
CARROLL, S. J. and H. L. TOSE (1973) Management by Objectives. Ne
Macmillan.
FORD, M. (n.d.) "Writing educational objective, Grand Valley State Colleges." College
IV. Allendale, MI.
GROSS, E. and P. V. GRAMBSCH (1968) University Goals and Academic Power.
Washington, D.C.: Amer. Council of Education.
KRATHWOHL, D. R. [ed.] (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classi-
fication of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain, New York: David
McKay.
MAGER, R. F. (1962) Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruction. Belmont, CA:
Fearon.
O'CONNELL, W. and W. E. MOOMAW (1975) A CBC Primer: Competency Based
Curricula in General Undergraduate Programs; Report of a Conference. Atlanta, GA:
Undergraduate Education Reform Project.

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McFaul et al. / STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM [85]

THOMPSON, J. D. and W. J. McEWEN (1958) "Oragnizational goals and environment:

goal setting as an interaction process." Amer. Soc. Rev. 23, 1: 23-31.
WEGMANN, R. (1974) "Management by objectives: pro and con." Houston, TX:
Univ. of Houston.

FURTHER READINGS

BLOOM, B. [ed.] (1956) Taxonomy of Education Objectives: The Classifi

Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David M
most influential taxonomy of educational objectives thus far developed
education. A classic work.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1973) The Purposes and Responses of
Higher Education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Comprehensive
national survey to determine the basic goals of America's institutions of higher
learning.
CARROLL, S. J. and H. L. TOSI (1973) Management by Objectives. New York:
Macmillan. Discusses the history and uses of MBO techniques as a method of
establishing organizational goals and evaluating their achievement.
FORD, M. (n.d.) "Writing educational objective, Grand Valley State Colleges."
Allendale, MI. Manual of instruction in writing course objectives.
GROSS, E. and P. V. GRAMBSCH (1968) University Goals and Academic Power.
Washington, D.C.: Amer. Council of Education. Relates the goal structure of higher
education to the problems of power and governance.
KRATHWOHL, D. R. [ed.] (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classifi-
cation of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David
McKay. Companion taxonomy to Bloom's. Discusses the affective hierarchy of the
learning process.
MAGER, R. F. (1962) Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruction. Belmont, CA:
Fearon. Describes in behaviorist terms the philosophical and practical dimensions
of writing educational objectives. A classic work.
O'CONNELL, W. and W. E. MOOMAW (1975) A CBC Primer: Competency-Based
Curricula in General Undergraduate Programs; Report of a Conference. Atlanta:
Undergraduate Education Reform Project. Argues that within any institution of
higher learning educational goals and objectives should interlock in a descending
order from the most abstract institutional goals to most specific course objectives.
THOMPSON, J. D. and W. J. McEWEN (1958) "Organizational goals and environ-
ment: goal setting as an interaction process." Amer. Soc. Rev. 23, 1: 23-31. Discusses
the relationship between the establishment of internal organizational goals and the
external environment.
WEGMANN, R. (1974) Management by Objectives: Pro and Con. Houston, TX: Univ.
of Houston. Discusses pro and con arguments of MBO techniques. More critical
than supportive.

This content downloaded from

47.24ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[86] TEACHING SOCIOLOGY / OCTOBER 1977

The authors are all members of a working group ofthe ASA's Project on Teaching
Undergraduate Sociology. Over the last two years, they have met, discussed,
debated, and argued the issues summarized in the paper. Their points of view
were as varied as the institutions in which they teach, and it was through the
resolution of these differences in their own discussions that the strategy emerged.
The strategy, then, guided their observations of two departments in midstream of
the process.

This content downloaded from

47.247.179.237 on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:15:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms