Objectives in higher education

Thomas Hansson, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden

Abstract: In a global world routines change because of technological development. People, on the other hand, seem to prefer stability over change, especially during times of high workload plus innovation combined with organizational pressure for change. This text clarifies the impact of objectives for learning in higher education. Results verify to the analytical “power” of combined sets of action-oriented universals which enable for application, analysis and conclusions about similarities and differences in how to assess individual learning relative to collectively shared objectives.

Key words: Action verb, Assessment, Curriculum, Instruction, Objectives, Universals.

Introduction

Globalization of knowledge, economy and values influence ongoing technology supported social processes. One foreseeable result is a vulnerable mono-cultural society. A positive end-point could be creative homogeneous communities. Already today influences on mono- and multicultural development in higher education affect universals like religion, family, collectivismand solidarity.

Defining political, economic and social phenomena in terms of distributed power between individuals and collectives of peopleis a useful enterprise. From a perspective of educational adaptation to globalization, power and technology, Young (2004)outlines the character of an integrated curriculum with focusedobjectives based on societal demand and individual needs. Fiftyyears ago Durkheim (1956) focused on education as a means for transforming society by relating individual input to collectiveoutcomes. His description of a “duplex self” forms a salient track because eventually Durkheim (2006, p. 82) refuted the often misplaced dichotomy between individual and social influences on societal development, saying: “Thus the

antagonism that has much too often been admitted between society and individual corresponds to nothing in the facts.” Inidentifying universals for teaching and learning, Durkhem (ibid, p. 87) says the concepts individual and collective “imply each other” just like curricular objectives, liberty by self-control and discipline by authority do.

In each of us, it may be said, there exist two beings which, while inseparable except by abstraction, remain distinct. One is made up of the mental states that apply only to ourselves and to the events of our personal lives: this is what might be called the individual being. The other is a system of ideas, sentiments and practices which express in us, not our personality, but the group of different groups of which we are a part; these are religious beliefs, moral beliefs and practices, national and professional traditions, collective opinions of every kind. Their totality forms the social being. (p. 71-72)

Just like Humboldt [1792] did on universals like Bildung and Didaktik, Hopmann (2007, p 115) describes relations between social influences on learning, ethics and development in highereducation by objectives for “contributing to human mankind by developing one’s unique self.” Durkheim (2006) complements the idea saying that the most valuable objective of education is toconstitute the social human being from a duplex self in each man.

Education is the influence exercised by adult generations on those that are not yet ready for social life. Its objectis to arouse and to develop in the child a certain number of physical, intellectual and moral states which are demanded of him by both the political society as a whole and the special milieu for which he is specifically destined. (p. 80)

In defining education Durkheim (ibid) makes a case for collective influences on human behavior (justice, compassion, honesty, generosity) rather than for individual personality,

agency or initiative. Rees et al. (2004, p. 932-933) comment onDurkheim’s emphasis on collective influences, saying “And yet, however personal ‘learner identities’ may be, they remain the products of individuals’ social experience.” So it is a relevant ambition to study relations in higher education between singular subjects and groups of people.

Universals

A universal is a coherent unit of analysis covering qualities that particular things have in common, their characteristics. Some general qualities are kinds (chair), property (grey) and relation (next to). Collective universals complement individualand particular elements just like a concept like nomotetic complements ideographic. Universals are abstractions like “democracy” or particulars like “Thatcher”. Brown (1991) provides a list of universals which include commonly shared cultural elements, patterns, traits or attitudes. Language universals like noun, verb etc. generalize systemic qualities across national cultures.

Human universals cover (Brown 1991) basic ideas like sharing offood, play, social structure and territorial behavior. By the nature of the concept, universals harbor collective and individual referents and they refer to shared and unique behaviors, thoughts and attitudes. The idea of human universalsholds true because findings apply to past generations, current behavior and the future. Extraction and application of universals build on the contention that since our biological bodies remains basically the same, so do our thoughts, culturalpractices and attitudes. There are implications of separating between universals in organizations with a collective referent and particular situations with an individual referent. Universals form the starting point and the final result of individually and collectively defined activity, be it by cultural traits, linguistic patterns, socially constructed perceptions, behavior, cognitions or other. But how do formulation on the one hand and adherence to curricular

objectives on the other hand relate to specific groupings of curricular “action verbs”?

Universals are “exemplary concepts, languages, tools etc” (Hopmann 2007, p. 115). They apply for qualitative research data and collective cultural traits. For the researcher they offer a conceptual tool for studying units of analysis, clarifying similarities and describing differences. For this study universals define e.g. instruction-studying-learning, that together form a logical unit of analysis. Properly combined, universals form analytical tools for studying objectives in higher education. Brown (2013, p. 4) says “any statement about universality is based on some sort of sampling.” Thus 100 % confidence in particular claims of universality is hard to obtain. The overall objective of this study is to understand relations between individual and collective influences on studying and learning.

What seems to be the problem?

A limited number of universals appear for activity systems regarding application of learning objects by curricular contentin steering documents plus self-assessment of relations betweenhow-method (talk-write) versus what-contents (curriculum). Collective references define how (by what means) formulation of curricular objectives facilitates student learning and teacher assessment. Brown (2013, p. 10) says: “Many adaptationsmay in some circumstances conflict with each other, so that theresulting behaviors are compromises. Purely local conditions may favor compromises in one direction rather than another.” Contextual variables help the teacher adapt curricula to the students’ objectives, needs and resources. This case covers a language universal, i.e. abstraction in speech and thought by means of planning, delivery and assessment of teaching and learning in higher education. The overall focus is on issues related to mediating individual acts and systemic performance but the specific focus is on application of pedagogical taxonomies by first

intended learning outcomes, second by objectives and third by action verbs like describe, understand, apply or compare.

Universals, taxonomies and steering documents are the products of past, current and future ambitions. According to Hopmann (2007, p. 117) one such old curricular ambition was to “list the subject matter of teaching, but not the educative meaning attached.” Such delineated curricula failed to make the most ofstudents’ potential to learn. Teaching and learning concerns methods for opening up a “learning object” or the “educative substance” for the students. It is a matter of understanding how the content “became open in their meeting with the content in the given teaching process.” Related universals cover processes for ordering, sequencing and choosing appropriate how-method and what-contents. Hopmann (ibid., p. 113) says during the phase of forming valid objectives problems related to planning syllabi and pursuing curricular content become apparent.

Design of objectives for learning makes up the one and only formal “contract” between teachers and students. The process ofintroducing, teaching, measuring and relating outcomes to objectives is a compulsory teacher assignment. The teacher mustbe able to assess the students’ knowledge, competence, ability,skills and memory. Bowden and Marton (1998, p. 184) say professional assessment should be open to several perspectives,it should go beyond isolated facts and procedures and it shouldfocus on “phenomena, concepts and principles that are central to the field of knowledge studied and which are vital to the students’ capabilities for handling situations in the future.” So, the teacher should formulate relevant and assessable learning outcomes for the benefit of students. Course curricula/syllabi specify the sought content of a course. They function as tools for the teacher and students to grasp a learning object (Hansson 2010). Compilation, use and evaluationof curricula and syllabi generate an awkward process. In the following, I propose a pedagogical model for designing steering

documents on intended learning outcomes that the students should attain.

Evaluation, quality control and assessment of teaching and learning are familiar concerns in education. Most of the time course coordinators, teachers and lecturers take on the job of designing the proper documents. Besides completing the actual composing process, steering document “designers” must consider evaluation of the course by means of specific criteria. This isan exceptional job as the curriculum/syllabus is a formal contract between institution and students. A matter of interestand concern is the actual choice of words. Syntax, semantics and language universals constitute links between described course contents and sought qualities. Precise, clear and straightforward objectives provide support for the stakeholders. Well-written documents have a direct bearing on examination processes because the intended learning outcome canbe assessed.

There is logic to the process. The teacher knows how to plan, implement and evaluate the deployed methods and the students’ acquisition of knowledge. Again, it is difficult to formulate relevant learning objects and assessable learning outcomes because the content and format of taught subjects change. Outcomes vary between levels going from shallow to deep understanding. How should the teacher manage the design processof sought knowledge and how should we understand the students’ achievement?

Evaluation by explicit objectives or rules of thumb

Evaluation of knowledge is a major concern in (higher)education just as quality control is a familiar phenomenon inindustrial production. Best practices, benchmarking, leanproduction and networking are established quantitative qualitycontrol measures. By definition evaluation implies an operationwhere the evaluator comments on sought results related toongoing processes and final outcomes. Process evaluation isdifferent from resulting evaluation. Another difference appears

between individual and collective evaluation. For this textfocus is on individual summative evaluation, e.g. teacherassessment of singular student’s actual knowledge, competenceand ability as defined by curricular steering documents.Student opinion about teacher performance (von Müllen 2006) isleft behind.

Focusing on relations between formulation of objectives incurricula, criteria and working assignments enables for a studyof quality of teaching, studying and learning. However, thereare exceptions to such a general conclusion. Although Anderssonand Carlström (2005, p. 168) introduce their book by mentioningquality control they merely highlight objectives as an “area ofreflection” categorizing (ibid, p. 174) evaluation of educationas “process”. Contrary to such an attitude to evaluation andthe quality of teaching and learning, Hermansen (2006, p. 31-32) suggests a way for faculty to approach the problem of howto compose inspiring and prescriptive curricula that reflectfirst term students’ generalist competence, their processcompetence and their ability to reflect over progress in self.More specifically the objectives for a combined economy andpsychology program contain a mix of parameters; subject matterand cross disciplinary exposure to and social competence;ability to deal with data, relations, analysis, reflection,plus competence to reflect on process and outcomes of learningin self.

In an attempt at furthering the perspective on the means forassessing knowledge Skov (2013) says the authorities search newforms of assessing and examining workplace relevantcompetencies; ability to cooperate, entrepreneurship andheutagogy (Canning 2010) defined as ability to learn. Adding tothe complexity of the field, there is an old method of“academic consensus” assessment. Schmidt (2006, p. 8) definessuch a process between tutors, censors or examiners. Academicconsensus is the result of work between “people who for thefirst time consult local university rules relative to their

everyday practices and preferences and together find validarguments for a specific character.”

The actual wording of objectives is far from enough tosafeguard a proper evaluation of student performance. Holisticevaluation is an ambitious objective but regardless ifobjectives are assessable and/or clear, there is an element ofsubjectivity in the teacher’s assessing of individualperformance relative to collective objectives (Bonderup Dohn2004). It would seem like an optimal objective that the teachershould follow a standard practice of examining, evaluating andgrading student performance relative to applicable criteria. Inthe end, the teacher must ensure that for the current situations/he in acts exactly the same way as in the last one, i.e. thats/he adheres to exactly the same rules and regulations.

Developing learning outcomes

The challenge of improving the quality of teaching and learning(how) plus reaching sought knowledge (what) is an ongoing battle. Finding solutions to obstacles related to assessment oflearning processes is an ongoing challenge. Marton and Säljö (1976) and Biggs (1993) take on board strategies for surface learning and deep learning. Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy in Figure 1provides a holistic view of the teaching and learning process. Other taxonomies on types and levels of theoretical knowledge harbor hierarchies as defined by action verbs like create, evaluate, analyze, apply, understand and remember.

Figure 1. Linear classification of a multidimensional object

Paradoxically, a solution to a general outline of related learning objectives would be for any specific discipline to describe its unique taxonomy, reflecting divisions and levels of education, set of categories, combinations of categories etc. Physics students would have to be able to synthesize; literature students would have to be able to discuss; and psychology students would have to be able to comprehend. Social science students in general usually memorize a technique for preparing and/or for example conducting an interview, collecting qualitative data and reproducing the necessary steps of a session without the slightest clue as to what the effect, quality or learning of the exercise would be (Säljö 2001). An explicit (how) focus on e.g. “evaluation” or “knowledge” in Bloom’s (1956) hierarchy of action verbs, on the other hand, would help improve the student studying, learning and performance.

Over the past years germ cell epistemological universals have developed. Conceptual pairs of universals like theoretical wissen vs. practical können (Dewe & Radtke 1991) and implicit verstehen vs. explicit erklären (Bransen 2001) dominate the scene.Curriculum typical action verbs (Anderson & Kratwohl 2001) mirror such universals and represent outcomes which the students are supposed to achieve. “Apply” and “understand”

signify different understanding of a chosen method (planning, conducting, evaluating) and sought effect (knowledge). Gibbs and Habershaw (1998, p. 107-108) share a six-item list of action verbs without indication of what-contents or how-effect either for the universals or the exemplifying action verbs in parenthesis: know (state, define); understand (identify, represent); apply (demonstrate, instruct); analyze (identify, differentiate); synthesize (summarize, argue); evaluate (judge, determine). Neither is there an indication if the action verbs are individually distributed or collectively shared.

So, there is a need to design a hands-on strategy for forming relevant and assessable objectives. Formulating such objectivesis a serious concern spanning over relevant and assessable targets,goals and objectives. The proper wording of a sought learning object is far from enough for securing the objective or safeguarding the result. Taken together, control of learning processes (how) and assessment of outcomes (what) is a complex matter, a qualified task and a precise operation, basically because the objectives/intended learning outcomes should match the design of the course. Precisely defined objectives must allow for the students to express themselves orally, in writing, by symbols or multi-modal means. Matters concerning collectives of students and adaption to personality traits influence the teacher’s appreciation of relevance and assessment during the design process.

Relevant and assessable objectives

In order for construction of goals, tasks and learning processes to become relevant they must account for knowledge, skills and sometimes even attitudes. The students may well consult words/concepts over indexed contents at the beginning of the course. John Dewey’s (1910) classic literature How to Learn plus Jackson’s (2012) replica provides useful content forPedagogy students at advanced level. They may use the text as ameans for understanding course contents, assessable goals and expected outcomes. They may consult the objectives of the

course as defined in curricula. Then they may decide on the significance of the literature and put into context the finer details of the contents. A comprehensive curriculum facilitatesthe students’ understanding of how Dewey’s and Jackson’s literature integrates with methods for teaching and learning. By combining such textbook contents, headlines index words and so on with pedagogical action verbs, teachers and students ensure that objectives relate to the studied course content andsought outcomes of learning.

By deploying a co-constructive method for forming relevant and assessable objectives, the students will learn what is expectedof them. Relations between the content of the course literatureand the teacher’s objectives help the student relate personal input to expected objectives. The teacher should introduce the course content in such a way that it becomes the object of reflection. The teacher may well do so by contextualizing the course contents and putting fragmented pieces of information into a comprehensive whole. Also, the course literature determines the direction rather than the specifics methods deployed in the course, all of course provided that the teachermanages to establish a link between action verbs and intended learning outcomes. Such an approach to a design process contrasts with a procedure in which a teacher introduces the course content irrespective of the literature, student needs ormotivation, leaving the students in a bewildered state of uncertainty. The students deserve to learn what they should learn by following the teacher’s planning, teaching, assessmentand grading process.

An assessable task usually generates a response to a question in e.g. a writing assignment like an essay, a summary or collection of data. The students’ response must relate to imperatives like argue, describe, present or analyze. Such action verbs deserve attention in their linguistic, pragmatic and cultural right because there is a social and cognitive logic attached to each of them. First, the teacher should be able to observe and measure the students’ performance. Second, the

action verb should describe a specific outcome for each mental operation. Third, the action verb must result in relevant behavior, usually text, which the teacher can observe, measure and assess. Vague verbs like write about or elaborate merely confuse sought mental operations. Figure 1 displays the positioning of frequently employed and prototypical action verbs.

Figure 2. Epistemology for positioning kinds of learning vs. vague and clear verbs

After completing the course students who attain the formal objectives possess certain skills, knowledge and abilities, this is a contention at the heart of the study. Expected learning outcomes cover abstract knowledge of something or students’ concrete accomplishment of something. Verbs like knowor understand are difficult to assess and the teacher will have a hard time telling if and how a student knows something. Thus,“vague” verbs for deep learning are detrimental to just assessment. On the other hand, “clear” verbs like apply or contrast are helpful for assessing surface learning. Choosing the proper action verb for promoting attainment of course objectives is a crucial ingredient for understanding planning, teaching and learning plus assessment of knowledge. Biggs and Tang (2007) list vague verbs like familiarize with, appreciate, be aware of, know, learn and understand. ”Clear” verbs like compare and contrast help the students reach levels of deep learning. Any action verb deployed as a universal contains qualities, all of which need to be considered.

”Können”

”Verstehen”

”Wissen”

”Erklären”

Two prototypical course objectives illustrate the characteristics of the studied phenomenon. The first course objective contains a vague action verb (know) for deep learningand the second one centers round a clear action verb (apply) for surface learning.

On completion of the course, the student is expected to know about pedagogical reflection

On completion of the course, the student is expected to be able to apply John Dewey’s steps of scientific reflection

By expressing an intended learning outcome carelessly there is a risk that students will pass a course examination without being able to explain what is meant by e.g. reflection, even though apply is a transparent concept compared to know. “Clear” verbs are assessable and easy to grade for the teacher. But they might direct student behavior towards surface learning. Regardless if the action verbs are clear or vague they should stimulate deep learning.

Vague verbs like know and realize usually have little relevance in helping the teacher forming assessable objectives. They stimulate surface learning by memorizing and generate answers which are difficult to assess. On the other hand, action verbs like apply are clear but fail to support the students’ deep learning. On the positive side, objectives inspired by such verbs are easy to assess. The action verb reflect, represents deep learning by a vague verb. If students are supposed to reflect over a concept like e.g. reflection, they need to expressthemselves by turning the concept into a pedagogical problem. But the teacher would still find it hard to assess and grade attainment of the sought objective. Finally, clear and deep action verbs share a dynamic quality. If students were asked tocompare, contrast and explain e.g., Dewey’s (1910) views on relevant conditions for reflective thinking with Vygotsky’s (1962) conceptions of human development, memorizing of textbook contents hardly supports learning. For the teacher, however, itwould be an easy task to assess objectives for learning in

response to comparing, contrasting and explaining ways of understanding the role of reflection for human development. Ideal balancing of action verbs could be either of a number of things: (a) one verb from every sector (Figure 1) for any course; (b) clear verbs on surface learning for basic courses; (c) vague verbs on deep learning for advanced courses; (d) a mix of the preceding designs with or without emphasis on any quadrant for thesis writing.

Categorization of universals for “deep” learning by “clear” action verbs is a contextual thing. The structuring of a useful display over Deweyian and Vygotskian perspectives on education,teaching and learning, knowledge and progress, calls for deep learning by clear objectives. Being able to find a relevant quote on e.g. reflection is a shallow memorizing procedure because anyone could collect quotes from a book. Classifying verbs as means for deep or surface learning relates to a combination of text-internal and text-external contexts. Given that the objectof higher education is to plan, apply and assess outcomes, studying the functioning of action verbs (language universals) form a helpful tool.

Results

Most objectives materialize as a sentence like: “At the end of this course the student should be able to …” Other ways is to use assessment sheets or to engage several markers in the assessment process. The preferred way to analyze the functioning of (control by) objectives in education is represented by a study of action verbs in national and local steering documents. In categorizing such verbs for assessing intended learning outcomes several universals appear; assess, realize, identify, value, communicate, communicate, argue, motivate, use, plan, seek, produce, present, organize, analyze, interpret, relate, combine, formulate, account for, discuss, solve problem and evaluate. Data from steering documents in Högskoleförordningen (HF), Degree of Doctor (2006) and courses in Pedagogy (PE1115; PE2506; PE2502) make up the basis of a document study.

National Curriculum – Högskoleförordningen

For national objectives and sought outcomes of teaching, studying and learning for Degree of Doctor applies a division of hierarchically structured (1-3) universals by knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities plus judgement and approach.

Faculty Curriculum in Pedagogy

Action verbs (bold) in regional BTH-curriculum for Bachelor andMaster students in Pedagogy comprises of clear objectives directed towards surface learning.

1. Demonstrate they understand and know; Demonstrate familiarity with methods

2. Demonstrate an ability to analyze and synthesize, critically examine and assess; Demonstrate an ability to identify and formulate issues, to plan and conduct research plus to scrutinise and evaluate such work; Contribute to the development of knowledge; Present and discuss research results; Identify their need of further knowledge; Contribute to the development of society.

3. Demonstrate intellectual independence and scholarly integrity; Make ethical assessments relating to research; Demonstrate deeper insight into the potential and limitations of scholarship.

For this example knowledge and understanding signify a practical ability to apply skills and abilities to academic work (demonstrate) categorize sought studying and learning processes and outcomes.

Local Curricula

Action verbs in the curriculum of a basic course in (working life) Pedagogy (PE1115) are distributed like this. Part1: discuss, relate to, account for and realize. Part2: account for and account for. Part3 (essay): identify, account for, realize, plan, carry out, analyze and report. The rather

vague action verb “account for” dominates the sought objectives.

Action verbs in the curriculum of an advanced course in Pedagogy (PE2506) cover: show knowledge (identify); realize (identify, describe, illustrate), identify and account for; show deeper knowledge (identify, explain, relate to, describe, illustrate). For this curriculum the vague action verb “identify” is a frequently sought quality.

A master thesis curriculum of an essay-writing course in Pedagogy (PE2502) contains action verbs related to the writing process; i.e. generating ideas, text composing, editing and publishing: Formulate, apply, plan, carry out, report, scrutinize, value, argue, defend, account for and argue. Account for and realize make up the most frequently mentioned action verbs.

Criteria

Local criteria for assessing master theses (PE2502) contain action verbs which are hard to motivate, understand and assess, e.g. show independence, originality and familiarity with, separate (between/from), generate, seek support (for),originate from (!). One explanation as to the existence of these action verbs could be that teachers think they improvethe students’ learning process by clarifying what they should do in order to get good grades. The students’ meetingwith curricula reflects the teachers’ formation of manual-like(search-collect-value-interpret) or instructive (defend) ratherthan assessable action verbs. The remaining action verbs in thestudied local criteria range from rare to frequent in the following order: realize, reflect, show ability, use, describe, discuss, argue, highlight, clarify, compare.

Distancing general national objectives (HF) are of little valueto the end-users because they are vague and positioned in the verstehen-corner of Figure 3. Local BTH-curricula are also on the deep (knowledge) side of things. Contrary to HF-objectives they are suited to helping the students understand and meet course objectives by explaining qualities, relations, situations, arguments, phenomena etc. The remaining instructive action verbs like apply, conduct and describe are situated in the surface-learning können-corner of Figure 3.

Analyzing the result

Sought and relevant plus assessable and intended learning outcomes should link to the course literature, they should be motivational, facilitate deep learning and enable for the teacher to assess individual performance by means of global universals, preferably in HF-pairs of knowledge and understanding, ability and competence plus evaluation and attitude. Identifying the centre of the gravity of a scientific concept is a must. Once the job is done, the sought objectives should be coupled to thecontent and formulated accordingly. It is most convenient to compose questions begging for a response as to Who, When, Why, What, How (Burke, 1962; 1970) a concept, a phenomenon, a situation, an activity or an outcome applies. And they should learn by engaging in a process guided by specific outcomes

generating deep learning. Eventually they should connect with acomprehensive response generated by relevant action verbs, assessable objectives and global universals.

Imagine that the object of study is Pedagogy. Also imagine thatthe course includes a module on “learning”. Sought objectives must relate to the contents of that module, i.e. the student must be able to associate literature and curricula with the subject. Available methods involve assumptions about the theme,in Pedagogy usually ideographic rather than nomothetic interpretation, reflection and display of personal preferences.This is a normal situation for social science students. One salient objective of a course in Pedagogy is that students should learn interpretative methods by means of action verbs combined with universals like when, why and by whom. The students should also learn how to use and what is meant by interpretative methods; i.e. How do you know about and understand that …, When does your ability and competence show regarding …, and What does your evaluation and attitude suggestabout …? Alternatively they should be able to learn by applyingEngeström’s (2013, p. 14) suggestion of a what-where to-hierarchy of question-words.

Valid objectives in Pedagogy cover interpretative methods, question words and assessable action verbs. They connect as follows: who/why (contrast, compare); how, i.e. in what manner and how, i.e. by what means (describe, conduct); what (show, display, illustrate). They also connect by sought outcomes of learning associated with question words and assessable verbs. On completion of the course, the student should be able to/know/understand an interpretative methods module by: (1) comparing and contrasting what- difference(s) between parametric and interpretative methods; (2) explaining when and why to use interpretative methods; (3) providing an example of a situation where interpretative methods should be used; (4) explaining how to use non-parametric methods; (5) conduct (how)an interpretative survey; (6) suggest interpretative (how) methods for hypothesis testing.

For the teacher it is an easy job to translate these (1-5) sought objectives into exam questions. (a) compare processes and outcomes of hypothesis testing by quantitative data with interpretation of qualitative data; (b) explain when and why interpretative methods should be used; (c) describe how to conduct a study by means of e.g. grounded theory; (d) analyze one set of data by means of several methods; (e) provide examples of a method best suited for pursuing the purpose of the study.

Question words (1-5) combined with action verbs (a-e) demonstrate how objectives related to examination should ideally function. The suggested approach for formulating assessable objectives provides transparency for the students. The approach covers attention to content from multiple perspectives. Also, the approach ensures operations by the proper means for assessing student knowledge.

After completing a course the students should attain objectivesrelated to the course literature, thus ensuring their relevance. The students should attain objectives associated with clear active verbs. Fortunately, verbs aiming at relevant and assessable objectives easily translate into exam questions. Theteacher’s design procedure helps the students by providing transparence as to how objectives and criteria co-exist and influence each other. Finally action verbs clarify the what-content of the course and the how-studying method by individualinput.

Summary

From a practical point of view ranking explicit curricular objectives for social science subjects turns out a specific “ranking order” primarily by the potential of each steering document to help teachers assess outcomes by types of learning:erklären in local curricula in Pedagogy by action verbs compare or separate – können in BTH-curriculum for all subjects by the verbs apply or manage – verstehen in national curriculum for allsubjects by know or reflect – wissen in a wastebasket category by the verbs remember or realize. Distributed objectives and

action verbs – as summarized above – provide an account of global universals related to the teacher’s forming of steering documents. Complementary models (Durkheim 1956/2006) for planning of teaching and learning plus assessment of knowledge promote a mix of influences. Motivation, learning and democracyopen up for empirical analysis by means of relevant and assessable objectives. Clear and deep action verbs defined as universals plus detailed valid objectives promote student learning and societal development.

Literature

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R., et. al. (Eds). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing. Longman.

Andersson, S., & Carlström, I. (2005). Min skola och samhällsuppdraget. Praktik-reflektion-utveckling. Stockholm: Liber AB.

Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 3-19. 

Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. McGraw Hill

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I. The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Bonderup Dohn, N. (2006). Karaktergivning – intuitive ekspertise eller ‘viden i praksis’? Dansk universitetspӕdagogisk Tidskrift, 1, 38-46.

Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The University of Learning: Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.

Bransen, J. (2001). Verstehen and erklären, philosophy of. N. J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 16165-16170.

Brown, D. (1991). Human Universals. N.Y: McGraw Hill.

Brown, D (2013). Human universals, human nature, human culture. (Accessed March 13 2013) at http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/BrownUniversalsDaedalus.pdf

Burke, K. (1962). A Grammar of Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives. New York.

Burke, K. (1970). The Rhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology. London: University of California Press.

Canning, N. (2010). Playing with heutagogy: Exploring strategies to empower mature learners in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(1), 59-71.

Dewe, B., & Radtke, F.-O. (1991). Was wissen Pädagogen über ihrKönnen? J. Oelkers & J. Tenorth (Eds.). ProfessionstheoretischeÜberlegungen zum Theorie-Praxis-Problem in der Pädagogik. Pädagogisches Wissen. 27, 143–162. Weinheim.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we Think. Boston DC: Heath and Company.

Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and Sociology. New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (2006). Education: its nature and its role. Lauderet al (Eds.). Education, Globalization & Social Change. Taylor and Francis Ltd, 76-87.

Engeström, Y. (2013). Activity theory and expansive design. (Accessed April 4, 2013) http://projectsfinal.interactionivrea.org/2004-2005/SYMPOSIUM%202005/communication%20material/ACTIVITY%20THEORY%20AND%20EXPANSIVE%20DESIGN_Engestrom.pdf

Gibbs, G., & Habershaw, T. (1998). Preparing to Teach. An introduction to Effective Teaching in Higher Education. GB: The Cromwell Press.

Hansson, T. (2010). Co-construction of Learning Objects: Management and Structure. S. Wallis (Ed.). Cybernetics and Systems Theory in Management: Tools, Views and Advancements. New York: IGI Global.

Hermansen, M. (2006). Evaluering og studieordninger. Dansk universitetspӕdagogisk Tidskrift, 1, 31-32.

Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: the common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109-123.

Högskoleförordningen. (2006). Examensmål för Doktorsexamen. SFS 2006:1053

Jackson, P. (2012). How we think we think. Teachers College Record, 114(2), 1-17. Accessed April 17 at http://www.tcrecord.org/library

von Müllen, R. (2006). Undervisningsevaluering og udvikling af underviserkompetencer. Dansk universitetspӕdagogisk Tidskrift, 2, 16-21.

Rees, G., Fevre, R., Furlong, J., & Gorard, S. (2004). History,biography and place in the learning society: towards a sociology of life-long learning. Lauder et al (Eds.). Education, Globalization & Social Change. Taylor and Francis Ltd, 926-934.

Schmidt, E. (2006). Bedømmelsens komplekitet. Dansk universitetspӕdagogisk Tidskrift, 1, 6-12.

Skov, S. (2013). Nye lӕringsmål krӕver nye eksamensformer. Dansk universitetspӕdagogisk Tidskrift, 8(14), 76-85.

Säljö, R. (2001). The individual in social practices. Nordisk pedagogik, 21(2), 108-116.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Ma: MIT.

Young, M. (2004). Curriculum studies and the problem of knowledge; updating the Enlightenment? Lauder et al (Eds.). Education, Globalization & Social Change. Taylor and Francis Ltd, 734-741.