Some Comments by Arlene Payne

Abstract

Dr. Eisner deals with an important problem: the frequent failure of formally stated objectives to provide a basis for other decisions about instruction. The solution implied is that teachers should be free to function as teachers without stating their objectives. Apparently this means that teachers should have some general direction in mind, but they need not formulate the desired outcomes in explicit terms. Such a solution would be welcomed by many teachers-it is not an easy task to clarify one's thoughts on the objectives of instruction and then use the objectives as a basis for other decisions. Although I do not agree that teachers should be excused from this task, my purpose here is to comment on Eisner's interpretations of curriculum theory. (It should be noted that the solution mentioned above is only implied by the article. In the latter part of the article the question is not whether objectives should be stated but where this step belongs in the process of curriculum development.) The article focuses attention on a problem that Eisner believes exists because of limitations in theory. It is certainly possible that curriculum theory or rationale could be improved to provide better guidance in the selection and use of educational objectives. However, the particular limitations given in the article are supported by some questionable interpretations of earlier curriculum writers. If the purpose is to improve curriculum theory, these interpretations should be examined. In the following discussion, the Tyler and Herrick references are the same as those cited in the article; I have assumed these to be the principal sources of the curriculum theory to which Eisner refers.