2009 年 18 巻 p. 59-71
This paper is an article about the development of the theory of educational objectives in America. In the 1940s, R.W. Tyler advocated that educational objectives should be clarified at the beginning of curriculum design. These educational objectives can then function as criteria for the choice and organization of materials and learning experiences and as criteria for curriculum evaluation. Furthermore, Tyler proposed that educational objectives should be clarified in terms of both content and behavioral aspect: this became known as the theory of behavioral objectives. In 1956, B.S. Bloom developed the taxonomy of educational objectives which classified the behavioral aspect of educational objectives. The theory of behavioral objectives and Bloom's Taxonomy facilitated the development of rational scientific curriculum design in the 1960s. In the 1980s, the standards movement developed, and new theories and technology to assess higher-order thinking, such as performance assessment, authentic assessment, performance tasks, rubrics, and portfolios, were proposed. In the 1990s, many programs of unit design for the deep understanding of content standards were developed. And Bloom's Taxonomy was revised in 2001. This paper examines the development of the new theory of educational objectives and assessment after the 1980s. It particularly attempts to elucidate the difference between the theory of behavioral objectives and of performance assessment in the way of clarifying intended learning outcomes. Firstly, this paper discusses two approaches to setting behavioral objectives: that of educational engineering which describes objectives in a specific way, and that of Bloom and his associates who describe objectives in a more general way. Secondly, this paper examines the theory of authentic assessment advocated by G. Wiggins. And it clarifies the methodology of setting educational objectives in performance assessment through comparison with the theory of behavioral objectives. In performance assessment, educational objectives are clarified as both examples and qualitative descriptions of the proficiency of student performance. Such educational objectives as student performance function as models which can lead to creative teaching and thoughtful learning, and prevent teachers from using a check list approach to accomplish instructional objectives. Finally, three frameworks which clarify and classify the competences behind student performance are examined. These are (1) the Revised Taxonomy developed by L.W. Anderson, (2) the Dimensions of Learning developed by R.J. Marzano, and (3) the Structure of Knowledge in Understanding by Design developed by Wiggins. Recently, in most curriculum design frameworks and standards documents, the development of student performance has been described as interaction between the development of knowledge and understanding, and the development of skills, and each strand is described concretely in a spiral manner. The form of behavioral objectives is not effective to foster higher-order thinking, and performance assessment needs a new approach to setting educational objectives.