Goals are a vital part of curriculum, but it appears that there is much disagreement as to how goals should be written.  Should goals be detailed like Mager suggests or should goals be more adaptable like Gronlund suggests?  One area of agreement is that goals should be the focus of a teachers planning and should aid in the process of teaching.
     Mager focuses on three parts to create and effective objective.  The three parts include an observable behavior, the conditions for which the behavior will occur, and criteria for which the performance is acceptable.  Any goals that do not include these three parts are considered not specific enough.  I believe that there must be some degree of specificity in order to accomplish learning, however; I am not sure that at the level of goals is the best place to have such details.  Lesson plans are a great place to have specifics, but a goal as specific as Mager’s behavioral objectives can help specify the plan of action to be taken in a daily lesson.  Specific goals do not leave much room for flexibility that is often needed in a classroom.  Not all students learn the same way or at the same rate and it is true to say that a teacher may not always be able to anticipate all the obstacles in the course of a lesson.  Mager’s behavioral objectives do not leave room for obstacles.
     “Gronlund (2000) suggests that objectives should first be stated in general terms, such as know, understand, apply, evaluate, or appreciate, which are then followed by specific behaviors providing evidence that the learner has met the objective.” Goals written using Gronlund’s instructional objectives are general, but with an intent to give direction for the lesson.  I agree with this particular form of goal development because it gives direction, but leaves room for the teacher to adjust in accordance with the classroom make up.
    When I taught the concept of ionization levels in chemistry it took more time than had been specified to cover the material, and it took different methods than were specified in my goals. I anticipated the usage of problems where the ionization shells must be identified and that my students could demonstrate their competence by getting 7 out of 10 ionization identification problems correct.  The expected duration of this material was two days, but it took four.  My goals were specific and not general enough to be flexible. I found a great deal of material that needed to be covered before the comprehension of ionization could be complete. It took alternative goals to reach this specific goal.  I now use goals that are flexible, but give some direction for the lesson.