LITMIR.BIZ

      Chapter 1

      RESEARCH AND THEORY

      Before addressing the research and theory on goals and objectives, it is useful to consider the issue of terminology. The terms goals and objectives have been used by different people in different ways. For some, the term goal applies only to the overarching purpose of curriculum, and the term objective is reserved for day-to-day instructional targets. In the research and theoretical worlds, these terms tend to be used interchangeably for general and specific purposes. In this book, the terms will be used interchangeably. However, as the following discussion illustrates, the focus of this book is on day-to-day classroom instruction.

      The importance of goals and objectives in education was established as far back as the first half of the last century by the educational philosopher and evaluation expert Ralph Tyler (1949a, 1949b). For Tyler, a well-constructed objective should contain a clear reference to a specific type of knowledge as well as reference to the behaviors that demonstrate proficiency relative to that knowledge. Prior to Tyler's recommendations, educators typically did not identify specific areas of information and skill as targets for student learning. Instead, broad topic areas such as “probability” or “World War II” represented the most specific level of curricular organization.

      Where Tyler's insights into the nature of content and the nature of learning made it clear that educators must design specific objectives and identify the behaviors that demonstrate achievement of those objectives, David Krathwohl and David Payne (1971) made distinctions between three levels or types of objectives: global objectives, educational objectives, and instructional objectives. As described by Robert Marzano and John Kendall (2007), global objectives are the most general. They are broad, complex areas. For example, “Students will be able to apply basic properties of probability” would be considered a global objective.

      Instructional objectives are the most specific of the three types of objectives. In Preparing Instructional Objectives, Robert Mager (1962) explained that a well-written instructional objective should include three elements:

      1. Performance. An objective always says what a learner is expected to be able to do; the objective sometimes describes the product or result of the doing.

      2. Conditions. An objective always describes the important conditions (if any) under which the performance is to occur.

      3. Criterion. Whenever possible, an objective describes the criterion of acceptable performance by describing how well the learner must perform in order to be considered acceptable. (p. 21)

      In the middle of the triad are educational objectives (Anderson et al., 2001). They articulate specific areas of knowledge, but don't identify the performance conditions and criteria for success as do instructional objectives. In Designing and Teaching Learning Goals and Objectives, we primarily address educational objectives, which we more commonly refer to as learning goals. How these goals can be addressed on the instructional level will also be examined in depth.

      The importance of learning goals to the day-to-day execution of classroom activities is fairly obvious. Goals are the reason classroom activities are designed. Without clear goals, classroom activities are without direction. Researchers Joseph Krajcik, Katherine McNeill, and Brian Reiser (2007) explain that good teaching begins with clear learning goals from which teachers select appropriate instructional activities and assessments that help determine students' progress on the learning goals.

      It is useful to keep in mind that goal setting is not unique to education. Indeed, it has its theoretical roots in organizational psychology. In their 1990 book A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Edwin Locke and Gary Latham provide an extensive history of goal-setting practice in the context of organizational theory. Although their research focus is exclusively on goal setting and performance in work settings, they note that much of the work-related goal theory can and should be extended to the field of education.

      Table 1.1 (page 5) displays much of the research on which the recommendations in this book are based.

Dimensions of Learning Goals

      From the research reported in table 1.1, one can conclude that two important characteristics of learning goals are goal specificity and goal difficulty. Goal specificity refers to the degree to which goals are defined in terms of clear and distinct outcomes. Goal difficulty refers to the degree to which goals provide a challenge to students.

      Goal Specificity

      Learning goals provide a set of shared expectations among students, teachers, administrators, and the general public. As discussed previously, they can range from the very specific (for example, “Students will be able to list the Great Lakes”) to the very general (“Students will be able to write a well-formed essay”). The research strongly implies that the more specific the goals are, the better they are. That is, goals that are specific in nature are more strongly related to student achievement than goals that are not. For example, Mark Tubbs (1986) examined goal specificity in a meta-analysis of 48 studies in mostly organizational settings. He found an overall effect size of .50 for goal specificity, which supports the notion that more specific goals lead to higher achievement (see table 1.1).

      The terms meta-analysis and effect size might be familiar to some readers and unfamiliar to others. (These terms and their relationship are described in some depth in appendix B on page 119.) Briefly, meta-analysis is a research technique for quantitatively synthesizing a series of studies on the same topic. In this case, Tubbs (1986) synthesized the findings of forty-eight studies on goal specificity. Typically, meta-analytic studies report their findings in terms of effect sizes (see the ES column in table 1.1). An effect size tells you how many standard deviations larger (or smaller) the average score for a group of students who were exposed to a given strategy (in this case, highly specific goals) is than the average score for a group of students who were not exposed to a given strategy (in this case, nonspecific goals).

Table 1.1 Research Results for Goal Setting