Some thoughts – FWIW (The numbers are more for the sake of my brevity and thinking things thru than anything else. Apologies for any overstatement of the obvious in places.):
1) Behavioral objectives use behaviors as *evidence* of learning. Behaviorist methods focus on *conditioning* of behavior. There is a key difference between the two (design and analysis versus process).
2) In my experience with them, learning paradigms are focused on creating environments for constant and varied levels of learning, rather than places where knowledge or understanding is passed down or simplified.
3) In order to determine whether learning has occurred or not, we must define learning.
4) Understanding happens in the mind of the learner. Teachers are not mind readers.
5) Behaviors (and objectives) help to define understanding and measure learning.
6) Common and clear points of reference between teacher and learner are necessary when measuring learning.
7) Use of the word “understand” tends to function as a cipher for many, promoting subjectivity at the expense of clarity.
8) Complexity necessarily includes essential elements.
9) Concepts of simplicity and complexity can become inverted when we conflate details with simplicity.
10) Complexity ≠ uncertainty or subjectivity
11) Applying objectives or outcomes when designing learning environments is not a way to resolve a trivial design problem. It is a means to clarify the expectations the teacher has for the learner, measure learner progress, and analyze both simple and complex modes of learning.
12) The Caroll and Rosson paradoxes cannot be remediated by omitting the essentials any more than ignoring the complexities.
13) Objectives are not limited in use to lower or simple modes of learning.
14) As objectives focus on learner behaviors, they can measure process and attitude as well as results. (Whether or not teachers use them to do so, is another issue.)
15) The complexity of subjective and symbolic concepts is not generally analyzed by recourse to more subjectivity and symbolism.
16) Subjective learning can be measured in objective ways.
17) Measurement and structure are not the whole. Learning is not limited to the specific objectives. Rather, the objectives define the minimum expectations, the waypoints of learning. A well designed course will allow learners freedom to expand and individualize their learning beyond the objectives and will elicit this learning wherever possible.
18) Objectives and outcomes are a key part of the branch the proverbial teacher stands on. We chop at them at our own peril.