The Operationalization of Learning Objectives. An Alternative Interpretative Scenario

A First Landmark: Conceptualisation and Operationalisation

The issue of operationalization objectives begins with a general statement (specific competence)

derived from other sets of statements, more general (the objectives of curricular cycles, the general

competencies). All coordinated to generate a final educational profile (the educational ideal). Any of

these statements provides images about what should be, but they invite at doubts about how it should be

done.

This is the challenge, methodological, but in the procedural sense. Why and how it should be done

at the microscopic level, that of the lesson? Ironically, the images are not clear, analytical, they hide

essential details. The cells of new construct (competence) are invisible. The teacher must go through

decoding way. A decoding of meanings that each competence posed as conceptual challenge.

This idea of operationalization assumes two basic categories: the concept and the

operationalization of a concept. For Ågerfalk (2004), the concept is always more abstract than its

operationalization and both need to be an explicitly stated linguistic aspect of the action knowledge under

scrutiny.

The operationalized concept can then be applied in practice whereupon consequences arise. To

summarize, one piece of knowledge can be instantiated and studied in (at least) four different shapes: as a

concept, as an operationalization of the concept, as an application of the operationalization, and as a

consequence of the application.

Conceptualization attributes means a clear understanding of a concept by specifying one or more

indicators that express the things that we think (Babbie, 2010). Conceptualization is refinement and

specification of abstract concepts and operationalization is developing procedures (operations) specific

research that will result in empirical observations representing these concepts in the real world (ibid).

A Second Landmark: The Learning Objectives and the Necessity to Operationalize Them

Ambrose and Bridges and Lovett and DiPietro and Norman (2010, pp. 3-6) define learning as a

process that leads to change, which occurs as a result of experience and increases the potential for

improved performance and future learning and identify seven principles of learning: students’ prior

knowledge can help or hinder learning; how students organize knowledge influences how they learn and

apply what they know; students’ motivation determines, directs, and sustains what they do to learn; to

develop mastery, students must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to

apply what they have learned; goal-directed practice coupled with targeted feedback enhances the quality

of students’ learning; students’ current level of development interacts with the social, emotional, and

intellectual climate of the course to impact learning; to become self- directed learners, students must learn

to monitor and adjust their approaches to learning.

In pedagogical literature, an important topic is the differences between the terms “learning

outcomes” and “instructional objectives”. Prideaux (2000) suggests: “Contemporary experienced

educators are now called upon to distinguish between outcomes and aims, goals and objectives”. Five

differences are highlighted which have practical implications for the curriculum developer, the teacher

and the student. These relate to: 1. the detail of specification; 2. the level of specification where the

emphasis is placed; 3. the classification adopted and interrelationships; 4. the intent or observable result;

5. the ownership of the outcomes (in Harden, 2002, p.151).

Learning objectives are statements of intent that describe what a student will be able to do as a

result of learning. They help to clarify, organize and prioritize learning and students are able to evaluate

their own progress and encourage them to take responsibility for their learning (Saul, Hofmann, Lucht &

Pharow, 2011, p.22).

Objectives define “where you are headed and how to demonstrate when you have arrived”

(Kaufman, 2000, p.44), emphasizing the end outcome or results that are intended to be exhibited by the

learner. According to Mager (1984), objectives are critical in selecting appropriate materials and

procedures, promoting instructor ingenuity, providing consistent and measurable results, setting goal

posts for students, and realizing instructional efficiency (in Yamanaka & Wu, 2014, p.75)

Kemp (2001) defines an instructional objective written from a behavioural perspective as “a

precise statement that answers the question, ‘What behaviour can the learner demonstrate to indicate that

he or she has mastered the knowledge or skills specified in the instruction?’” Writing “precise”

instructional objectives can be challenging but offers instructional designers clear, measurable goals to

which to guide their instructional design (in McLeod, 2003, p.37).

Educational objectives means an explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected

to be changed by the educative process (Bloom, 1981, 26). Moreover, when students have clear

objectives, they are more likely to seek feedback to close the gap between their current understanding or

skill and the desired goal (Hattie & Timperly, 2007).

Specifically, when students set their own goals, they take responsibility and ownership of their

learning goals. Such goal-directed behavior that results from goal setting is empowering and proactive

(Elliot & Fryer, 2008). Research has shown that proactive actions increase sense of agency: a recent fMRI

study found that self-determined behavior of goal setting is indeed closely related to people’s sense of

agency and correlated with increased intrinsic motivation (Lee & Reeve, 2013). Setting goals can be

especially important for students with low achievement motivation.

Drafting learning outcome objectives for the development of desirable feelings, beliefs, attitudes,

or values is difficult. (…) when you are teaching abstract states as attitudes, you can only know whether

you succeeded by observing learners doing something that represents the meaning of these abstractions

(Houlden, Frid, & Collier, 1998, p.330).

Merriam and Caffarella (1999, p.251) identify three assumptions all behaviourists such as Mager,

Skinner, Thorndike and Watson share about the learning process. First, observable behaviour rather than

internal thought processes is the focus of study; in particular, learning is manifested by a change in

behaviour. Second, the environment shapes behaviour; what one learns is determined by the elements in

the environment, not by the individual learner. And third, the principles of contiguity (how close in time

two events must be for a bond to be formed) and reinforcement (any means of increasing likelihood that

an event will be repeated) are central to explaining the learning process.

Hattie (2014, p.101) identifies two parts of goal-oriented learning process: clarity of educational

objectives and the set of criteria for success. Both must be transparent for students. According to Hattie

(idem, pp.101-102), "effective teachers successfully plan a lesson by choosing objectives that are

sufficiently stimulating and by organizing learning situations that will help students achieve these goals."

The results of studies on the impact of objectives' setting (Wisey & Okey, 1983, Lipsey & Wilson,

1993; Walberg, 1999) confirms its importance: the average size of the effect is between 0.40 and 1.37,

and progress (percentile) is between 16 and 41 (in Marzano, 2015, p.25).

When?”

The predict answer: "At the end of the lesson" is a component of the objective. Probably many

theorists and practitioners will consider unnecessary this statement, considering that this location time is

implicit. Moreover, the writing of this segment for each statement / objective can be characterized even as

energetic-consuming act.

However, the continuous updating of this milestone is very useful because it invites teachers, in

their role as designers of school learning, use psychological and pedagogical valid criteria. First, it is

necessary that the entire set of operational objectives to be preceded by this formula: "At the end of the

lesson." Secondly, it is important that the teacher-designer to be aware what this "end of the lesson."

Previous ideas should have effects on the understanding component "When?" the objective. When

will formulate the objective, it must be time bound. In other words, the performing presumed by the

objective must be achieved on the basis of both learning experiences: in the classroom and at home. At

the technical level of operational, together with the need to specify the landmark "at the end of the

lesson," it configures an important consequence: the aim will specify the behaviour performative

purchased not only from experience in the classroom, but also on the basis of the home learning

experiences.

Changing the perspective from SMART attributes set, the teacher-designer guarantees the T (Time

/ Timely / Time Bound). Second, they will reflect and attribute level Achievable / Attainable.

Who?”

The predict answer: "The students". Naturally this component of the objective is easy to predict,

too. But what does it mean to be in terms of pedagogical logic? First, the "students" can means "all

students". But can be performed the same desirable behaviours (in its quality of school learning product)

by all students in a class at the same level of complexity and difficulty? If not, must recognize the

following fact: the objective specify a purchase achievable only by some students. Not by the all.

If the answer is affirmative, must recognize another reality: the teacher sets the challenges on the

minimum difficulty and complexity level, an entire non-pedagogical decision: what about the students

with higher learning tools. It outlines thus a problem: how to ensure conditions Achievable / Attainable

and Realistic?

A possible solution is compliance with one of the fundamental principles of differentiation and

individualization instruction (Petre, 2013): every teacher-designer will formulate different levels of the

performance or will formulate different types of behaviours performative adapted to levels of class’

student (usually, a teacher identifies three levels: good students, average students, weak students). This

idea is formulated, in a way, by Negreț-Dobridor (2005).

But this strategy will be detailed at "the performance’ level" component. In conclusion, the

segment "the students" should be understood in a realistic way. Technically, the teacher will formulate

objectives so as to provide visibility of purchases that each student must achieve. Therefore, in the

content of an operational objective must be specified "each student" (ibidem, 2005).

What?”

The predict answer: "the behaviour". Although it seems the most "transparent" part of an

operational objective reality is not. Naturally, "for all practical behaviour, in this case the action,

translates into a verb to be chosen carefully. (...) We must avoid intellectualist verbs and verbs that

express behaviours to choose concrete, observable" (De Landsheere 1979, p.206). These ideas are useful

and criticisable, too, because they seem to give importance exclusive to observed behaviours, ignoring the

unobserved ones: "The objectives of cognitive and affective features include thinking and sensitivity that

are not directly observable" (Kibler et al., 1970, in De Landsheere, 1979, p.205). True, but the teacher

must anticipate these events and to accept the challenge to surprise them as purchases of pupils, so to

anticipates them in objective content.

It is important to note a condition: the verbal formula which is called the desirable behaviour must

be concrete, a non-intellectualist one. Thus, the desirable behaviour (performing) can be easily observed

and evaluated. This condition ensures the M (Measurable) attribute.

One detail: must be encouraged the formative dimension of learning. Learning outcomes are

formulated in syllabus/ curriculum in terms of competencies. Therefore, the set of the specific operational

objectives of a lesson must contain competences’ derived components. There is no the context to drill this

process. In short, the set objectives of a lesson must specify the type behaviours as: knowledges, attitudes,

attitudes.

Do not forget: at the level of a lesson is formulated the operational objectives type, therefore, the

knowledge, abilities and attitudes that are targeted must be derived at an operational level. At the specific

level it remain generally formulated, which would impede their realization.

Exemplification. The specific competence: Respecting the personal hygiene rules. Syllabus for 2nd

grade

At le specific level, can be derived components as:

a. Knowledges: a1. Knowing the personal hygiene dimensions/ a2. Knowing the tools for/ of

personal hygiene/ a3. Knowing how to use the tools for/ of personal hygiene/ a4. Knowing a set of

personal hygiene rules

b. Abilities: b1. Correct using of tools for personal hygiene

c. Attitudes: c1. Collaborating with parents for respecting the personal hygiene rules/ c2.

Manifesting initiative for respecting the personal hygiene rules.

Of course, it can be formulating other expectation, too. Important is to be aware at the general

level of these statements. So, they cannot be the aims of a lesson. They cannot be objectives. For the

lesson’s level we need a new derivation. This leads to the syllabus competencies’ operational

components. This means identifying concrete, operational landmarks, for each specific statement from the

list above.

The statement a1. Knowing the personal hygiene dimensions (a specific knowledge) may

generates the following operational knowledge: Knowing about five dimensions of personal hygiene:

corporal hygiene, food hygiene, life’s and work’s space hygiene, clothing hygiene, daily schedule

hygiene.

From this "point" it can start the formulating the knowledge performs at a desirable level,

operational one. For example, "to list the five dimensions of personal hygiene." At a higher level of

complexity and difficulty can be formulated the performing "formulate statements on the content of each

dimension of personal hygiene." More analytical: "to make statements on the content of bodily hygiene /

natural" or "to make statements on the content of food hygiene", etc. If these knowledge objectives are

considered by the teacher not relevant enough, then he can check the set of operational knowledge

derived from other knowledge existing at specific level.

The statement b1. Correct using of tools for personal hygiene (a specific ability) may generates the

following operational abilities: ”a correct using of tools specific for each personal hygiene dimension

(corporal hygiene, food hygiene, life’s and work’s space hygiene, clothing hygiene, daily schedule

hygiene)”. Or, more analytic: ”to use correct the tools for corporal hygiene”, ”to use correct the tools for

food hygiene”, etc.

The statement c1. Collaborating with parents for respecting the personal hygiene rules (a specific

attitude). This represents a serious challenge to the operational approach. In fact, this was one of the most

serious weaknesses associated to operationalization approach: impotence in the face of type attitude

expectations. Considered time-consuming acquisitions, it is believed that attitudes cannot be associated

with lesson’s learning experiences. However, pedagogical challenge for the teacher is to be able to shape

attitudes indicators that they consider desirable, and this approach is one of operationalization.

The challenge, in this example, is to establish several indicators for collaboration, and based on

this approach, to formulate some expectations by objectives. We used the concept of "indicators"

because, in their capacity as "observable and measurable signs" (Chelcea 2004, p.137) are designed to

capture the attributes of a unit / realities. It outlines an exciting event: the teacher really is a scientist who

must solve the kinetic senses provided by nominal and operational definitions.

Thus, at the operational level, it decides what is most relevant behaviours of students; for example,

"to communicate daily with parent / parents to determine the menu" or "to decide with parent / parents at

the end of the week, the program of activities for the coming week", etc.

All those performing of operational level, regardless of their nature (knowledge, skill, attitude)

will be introduced into the operational objectives’ ”body”. Based on operational technique will become

components of operational objectives. The reflexive attitude of teacher will guarantee the desirable

performs. He will decide whether to opt for more knowledge or for more abilities type performing

behaviour. But it must not ignore the principle of formative school learning experiences. This will ensure

attribute S (Specific / Significant). A last idea: The verb can be putted on future! In this way, the

objective express very clear the predictive nature of statement.

How?”

Predictive answer "the conditions". Another component of the operational objective, often reduced

to the significance of conditions for acquired behaviour manifestation. A wrong meaning, in pedagogical

terms, it lays the purchase in relation to a temporal landmark insignificant for process itself: after

project’s realization.

In other words, when specifies the conditions for manifestation of the behaviour-performing, it

assumes that it has already been formed. In this way, the objective no longer has its essential function, to

adjust/ to regulate learning, but fulfils a function attractive, but perverse, regulating the evaluation. By

mentioning this kind of condition, the teacher ensure manifestation of a negative influences of assessment

on learning: back-wash effect.

Moreover, such a condition specifying compromise condition of flexibility, adaptability,

functionality that must having the acquired behaviour. If performing must be proven in a default

condition, what arguments can be brought that that behaviour will manifest itself in various other

conditions?

Or that it might be usefully for the student in other situation or it can be accessed in other

circumstances. If required a child to identify the domesticated animals by circling the corresponding

figures which are on a page, it confirms the evaluative role of the request, on the one hand, and kept

insecurity that in another context, the child will recognize these animals, on the other side. In this way,

another condition-attribute is contradicted: S (Significant) or R (Relevant). The objective must be an

important purchase behaviour, useful for the economy of his future knowledge tools. Component

"condition" must be understood in another way: genetically, of specify the learning experiences through

that students form their expected behaviours. In other words, in the contents of an operational objective,

the teacher must anticipate not only the behaviour that must form (expressed by the verb, of course), but

also a set of learning experiences upon which this behaviour occurs. In a genetic way, the conditions must

show what are the learning experiences that produce the desirable performing behaviour?

An important detail: learning experiences can be both in the classroom and at home (homework).

So, these conditions can include: views of videos thematic, heuristic conversation, text analysis,

observations, conversations in work-group, independent study materials, discoveries...Such details allow

a good anticipatory visibility for learning experiences of students, and ensures landmarks regulating these

experiences.

How much?”

The predictive answer: "the level of performance". Professor skills are very important in determining

what level of the performance is desirable. In terms of quality or/ and quantity. Not all students can

perform at the same level, so it is essential that the teacher expected to adapt the expected performing

behavior to different levels existing in class. This provides a healthy differentiation in terms

psychological and pedagogical. Is managing the dynamic individualization - differentiation. According to

Hattie (2014, pp.101-102), "effective teachers successfully plan a lesson by choosing objectives that are

sufficiently stimulating and by organizing learning situations that will help students achieve these goals." In the meta-analysis conducted on the impact of exercising, Marzano (2015, p.107) presents the results of

studies made by Bloom (1976), Feltz and Landers (1983), Ross (1988), Kumar (1991). The average effect

size is between 0.48 and 1.47 and progress percentile is between 18 and 44.