I

~
fl UPH _
_

END

9 78
 10 ~~~8 ~~~~
_________
iso 1315 1122
135

1•1 ~~ ‘
~~~
20

1111125 IHI
~~~~L~~~~~ ~~
•

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANIMRDS

MCROCCP? RCIOLUTIOR lEST CHART
i , -- — . -- --
:t1:i ’ ,
; .
~ ~~ ______________
.
 ) ThE UNiTED STATESNAVAL WAR COLLEGE
~
F

PVBUSHFD BY

ThE NAVAL WAR COW~CE

RIR ADVANfTh RFSEAROI

78 08 07 116
—
 UNCLASSIFIED
S ECU( I T V C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF THIS P A G E (I+7i.n Oag e EnI.r.d)
~
—~~~~~

____________________________________
I
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PARE BEFORE FORM
I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACC (SSION NO. 3. REC I P IEN T S C A T A L O G NUMB ER

.— , L E (ond Subq :.I s. TYP OF REPORT & PERIOn

f
~~~~~~~ ~ -\
,
Behavioral Objectives : The Dilemma of Empirical~ Final .ep1>J I
~~~ PE
~ ~
M O O R S . R C PO R T N U M B E R

7. A u T HO R( . ) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)

‘4
Murra~.,.4(.B., LTC. IT.S4

S. RE t O. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT . TASK

Center for Advan d Research

~~~~~~~~~~
I
~~~~ J A REA S WORK UNIT NUMB ERS

Naval War College

4 Newport , Rhode Island 02840
I I . C O N T R O L L I N G O F F I C E N A M E AND ADDRESS 12. T DATE
Center for Advanced Research Jun~~~~78
N aval War College ‘3. OF PA GE5
Newport , Rhode Island 02840 68
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOD RESS(I1 dlIl.,.nt f ront ConIroll g Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of (Mi t.po f)
~

UNCLASSIFIED
I Sm . DECLA SS IFICATIO N/DOW NGRAO ING

16. DIST RIBUTION S T A T E M E N T (of thu. R.poflj

~~~~ .. -

Unlimi ted.

1
. . .•

~
~: 17 . DI S T R I B U T I O N S T A T E M E N T (of t h e ab e I r a c t .n(.r.d In Block 20 , IV dI1f ~~~~ !5fS V
f RSp.r4)

A
Unlimited.
.
- — .-

IS. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y NOTES

. )
~/-

IS. K E Y W ORDS (ConII nu i en r.r. r.. .Id. If n.c... ’y id Id.nll ty br block nuntb.r)
~
TEACHING METHODS ; JOB ANALYSIS; TAXONOMY ; BEHAVIOR; BEHAVIOR AND MODELS ;
COURSES (EDUCATION); COURSES (EDUCATION) AND PLANNING; PERFORMANCE (HUMAN ) ;
1’ MODELS ; OBSERVATIONS ; INFORMATION ; EDUCATION ; METHODOLOGY ; THEORY ; INDIVIDUAl.
TRAINING
4 A T R A C T (Conhlnu. or, ,.v.r.. •Id. If n.c ....,y ,d Id ,nt lfy by block .tuatb.r)
e proposed research project will address the feasibility of setting
lea ing objectives for a senior service college . The research methodology
will be a combination of literature search and interviews . The product viii b
a “boiled—down ” analysis of what the most knowledgeable individuals in this
area think i~ possible or not possible . It will be in a form useful to others
~~ desiring to (quoting M .G. Morrison)“apply the findings and recommendations at
the Wa r Colle~e level as well as to selected subjects at the Command and Staff
College Ievel ( A stud y of this nature is particularly timely and challenging,,.
(OVE
DD ,~~~~~ 1473 EDITION OF I NOV 55 IS OBSOL E TE UNCL IIE
S/N OlO2.LF.Oll.6&oI
v CL ASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (In aM.
~ ~ j u~~~~I~~~ ~
qj.,
~~~
,
. j•

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T
_
- -
- -

UNLLA S S IL 1i. t)
S E C U R I T Y C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF THIS P A G E (ITh.n Dali EnI.r.~ )

,. in view of DOD’ s penetrating scrutiny of ~f~ iè~ r education programs and the
concomitant pressures on the services to restructure their educational
—
‘
systems .

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF T HIS PA G E(W ~ on beE. j,M,on,O
I
- .S.. —. - .. .. 4* - t. - - t~ S4~~
~ 0’ . — — t
l
S . *
~~
 .- , -
~~~~~~~~~~~
-- ~~~~
-- . -- -
~~~~~~
—
~~~
-- . —
~~~ ~~~~~~~~
-- - -
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
- - -.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
~~~~~~~~~~~
— .
- -
~~

I
4~~~

-1*

BEHAVIORAL OBJEC TIVES :

THE DILEMMA OF EMPIRICAL ADEQUACY

H. B. MURRAY , LTC1 U .S, ARMY

JUNE 1978 \ Th
t~r 1 ~

The views contained herein are those of the auti~or , and

t publ i ration of this research by the C en t e r fo~ Advanced
Research , N-wal War College , does nor c~ nstitute en-
“‘
‘
~~~

dorsement thereof by the Naval War Cc i J e g e , the Depart-

ment ‘f the Navy , or ar8y other branch of the U.S.
Government.
Furth . r reproduction of this paper by agencies of the
S . ‘;overnment must be approved by the President , Naval
W dr C’diege . Reproduction by noriDverr.rner.t agencies or
indiv id ua ~ s without the written consent of the President ,
~ ava1 War College , is prohibited. The content, however,
is o~ en to citation and other reference ir. accordance
with accepted research practices.

A CrE
N1IS -
.

Doc C .
~

JUS TI ~I CA ,n., 0
.

.
—
~~~~~ FDIsT
IIlI *fAVAj~~fly~~~~
a;

08 07 11~~
_
_ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 vE SWOSARY
~~

This research project was oonduct ed at the requ .t of

the Chairman , Review of Education and Training for Offi-
cers, U.S. Army , Washington DC. •
An analysis of behavioral objectives as instructional
strategies and as aids in curriculum design is conducted _ _ _ _ _ _ _

by describing thc theoretical arguments for their use and j_...

by comparing the conceptual frameworks of the most widely _ _ _ _ _ _

used models. Because the logic of the proponent literature

so compellingly favored the use of behavioral objectives ,
the strong theoretical arguments are contrasted against
the reality of the empirical evidence. Although the use
~~~~~~~~~~~~

of behavioral objectives was proven to enhance IS*tXIM~ in

a limited number of et~dies, the empirical evidence did not
demonstrate a congruent advantage for their use, nor did
the findings confidently delineate the conditions under
which behavioral objectives should be used . :-~~~‘ v~
’,
the
overall significance of the empirical fin~i*9$. aust be
mitigated by the conceptual , and methodological weaknesses
attributed to the available research. Because the ra*lt.
presented in the experimenta l literature were , to a
nificant degree , both inconclusive and contradictory , th.
value of behavioral objecti ves should perhaps not be
assessed solely on empirical grounds. Tb. stron g ratio~~l
and func t ional. arguments in f avor of behavioral obj ectives

1T
~~~~I
~~:
~~~ _ _
 -~~~~

coUld best be - improved by suggesting that behavioral objec-

tives be considered one of several educational tools avail-
able to the military educa tor With credible , empirically
--

derived knowledge concerning the advantages and limitations

of behavioral objectives and the conditions under which
they - can be used moat effectively, military curriculum
designers and irn~tructors could then ration~~l~ determine
whether or not this tool is likely to be useful in their
own particular educational situation .

ii .
.

- - -~~~ - - --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~
 -.-
~~~~~
-. ‘ ---
~~~
---- ,-
~~~~~~
-- - -
~~~~~~~~~~
--
~~
—— ~~~~~~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY i

I I NTRODUC TION 1

I II THE DERIVATION OF BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES .

Perspective
. 5

5
The Composition of Behavioral Objectives 9
Mager Model 10
Gagne-Briggs Mode l 17
-
III EMP I RICAL RESEARCH 25

Survey of the Research 25

- Em p ir i c a l E f f e c t 35
- IV I NSTITU TI ONAL COMPA RISON 37

A ir Command and Staff College 38

t -
Army Command and General Staff College
Contrast
. 43
48
V SYNTHES IS OF THE AR GUME NT 51
-
NOTES 56

BIBL IOGRA PHY 62

iii

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ --
‘ -- --
— ~~~~~~~~

L CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

t
It has often been argued that organization is the hail-

mark of effective military teaching . The appropriate

arrangement and sequencing of educational materials appears

to influence not only what military students learn but

also their perceptions of the usefulness and importance

of what is to be achieved,either as specified or unspecified

goals. There fore , procedures which enhance educational

organization are likely to facilitate the learning of mean-

ingful material. By providing the student with a useful

perspective of what lies ahead in a course of instruction ,

I a framework can be conceptualized from which subsequent

-

learning can be arranged and related. In curriculum develop—

ment , particularly in the military , the design and use of

teaching materials is directed toward facilitating the intro-

duction of new and unusual situations and knowledge . The

preface to the teaching to come has usually been accomplished

by the use of an introductory statement or preinstructiona l

strategy .

For several years the Army has been attempting to state

accurately and unequivocally the educational objectives of

officer education and training programs and to describe the

criteria of acceptable performance. Recently, there has

been an increasing interest in defining the objectives of

_ —— --
,— - - - -_ - — . ~~~~~~~~ — ~~~
 - - - - -— -
--~~ -- -— -----~~~~~

teaching and learning in terms of observable performance at

the higher levels of the Army ’s education system. Since

learning must be planned , rather than haphazard , so that

the diversity of talents among individuals can be enhanced

while concurrently providing for ins titu tional socializ at ion ,

the instructional design must be based upon the knowledge of

how human beings learn. There are several types of human

capabilities : intellectual skills , cognitive strategy,

verbal informa tion , motor skills, and atti tudes , th a t are
typically acqu ired in an educational environment. Because

any or all of these huma n capabilities occur in subject

areas such as international relations , military tactics ,

man agement, language and sc ience , it is con tended tha t the

determination of what capabilities are to be learned is a

function of def ining needs , goals , and f i n a l l y the specif ic

behavioral objectives.

Although still controversial , the p h i l o s o p h i c a l b a s i s

for behavioral objectives has been discussed and debated

for many years , but scholarly empirical research has emerged
only within the last decade . The extent to which the enpir-

ical research suppor ts the use of behavioral objectives in

facilitating the learning process is a key question .

As the research for this project progressed it became

evident that general agreement was lack ing , no t onl y w ith in

the military but also within the education community , con-

cerning the ut ility of behavioral objectives as instructional

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~ -

 . _ -
. -_
- - - - -~~~~- ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~

strategies or in curriculum design . Everyone seemed to have

a different idea of what behavioral objective s were and how

good ones were developed. For these reasons , among others ,

I elected to structure the final product as described below .

Since this paper is directed more toward the military

instructor than the professionally tra ined instructional

technologist , I thought it necessary to first present

a theoretical overview concerning the derivation of behavioral

objectives. In addition , Chapter II describes the conceptua l

framework of two of the most widely used paradigm s : the

Mager and the Gagne-Briggs Models.

Because the logic of the proponent literature was so

compell ingly in favor of the use of behavioral objective s ,

it was necessary to contrast the strong theoretical arguments

for their use against the reality of the empirical evidence .

Chapter III presents a review of the available empirical

research from the perspective ~f three separate surveys
of the literature .
Proceeding from the theoretical and empirical aspects
of the research to practical contemporary application ,
Chapter IV contrasts the derivation of behavioral objectives
at two intermediate military educational institutions: the
Air Command and Staff College and the Army Command and
General Staff College . Chapter IV, while detailed in the
comparative phase , does not examine the measurements of
effectiveness at either institution .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 _ -.. - - — -- -- .-- --- _- -- _
. — - - , - - -~ - - - - -- .
— - ——-- - -
~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~

Chapter V is a synthesis of the theoretical, empir i cal

and practical aspects of the behavioral objective dilemma .

This project began as a study of the derivation of

behavioral objectives at the higher orders .. f learning ;

however , because the sub jec t of behavioral ob jec t iv es in
general is both complex and controversial , the higher end

of the behavioral continuum is not considered in isolation .

Explicitly described in the models and implicit throughout

the paper is the assumption that the literature provides the

conceptua l framework for the derivation of both l ower order

and higher order objectives.

Because of the pragmatic constraint of available time ,

f i v e weeks f o r r esearch and prepara tion , the scope of this

paper has been necessarily restricted as indicated.

For the pur pose of t h is pa per , performance objectives ,

behavioral objectives , and learn ing objectives are considered

to be sy nonymo u s ter ms.

-- - — ~~ ~ ~
— -------- ---—_ - -- - -~~~~~~~ — -——- -_ —-- .-—-- _ — - — -- -- --— -_ -
 - - -

CHAPTER II

TIlE DERIVATION OF BEHAVIORA L OBJECTIVES

Perspec t ive

Instruction is done to assist students in the learning

process and it should be done responsibly. When a teacher

considers the ram i f ica tions of the appl ica tion of l e a r n i n g

p r inciples to in s t r u c tion , there is no bet te r ques tion to

be asked than : W ha t i s to be learned ? Lear ni n g must be

p lanned , r a t h e r than haphazard , so tha t each s tuden t w i l l

come close r to the goals of optimal use of h i s or her ta l e n t s

ari d the ir i n t eg r a t i o n w i t h the physical , p r o f e s s i o n a l and social

env ironment. Also , d iversity among individuals must be en-

hanced while concurre nt ly providing for , in the case of the

m i l i tary , institutional socialization.
In struc ti on a l design must be based u pon knowledge of
how human beings learn . In considering how an individual ’s

ab i li ti es are to be developed , it i s no t enough to state

wha t they should be; one must examine closely the question

of how they can be acquired . Instructional materials

need to reflec t not simply the intellect of the author but

how the student is intended to learn such knowledge . Accord--

ing ly, instructional design m ust tak e i n to account the learn-

ing conditions that need to be established in order for the
desired effects to occur .

1 5
 Theories of learning have iden tified a number of con-

ditions for l e a r n i n g , and some of these are con tr o l l a b l e by

the procedures of instruction . Older theories emphas ize

particularly the external conditions for learning , embodied

in the p r i n c i p l e s of contigu ity , repetition and reinforcement.

Modern theories add to these the in t e r n a l cond i tions tha t

arise within the learner. These internal states are made

possible by t h e r e c a l l of p r ey iously ~c’arned m a t e r i .~~ 1 frem

the l e a r n e r ’ s m e m o r y . An act of l e a r n i nq is, t h e r et o r e ,

g r e a t l y a f f e c t e d by these i n t e r n a l l y g e n e r a t e d processes.

In p a r t i c u l a r , new l e a r n i n g is i n f l u e n c e d by the r e c a l l of

p r e v i o u s l y l e a r n e d i n f o r m a t i o n , i n t e l l e c t ua l s k i l l s , and

cognitive s t r a t e g i e s . The varieties of learned capabilities ,

and the c o n d i t i o n s f o r their learning, constitute the basis

2
for instructional p l a n n i n g .

There a r e s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of h u m a n c a p a b i l i t i e s

t h a t are t y p i c a l l y learned in e d u c a t i o n a l institutions: in-

t e l l e c t u a l sk i ll s , cognitive strategy , verbal inf o r m a t ion ,

3
motor skills and attitudes. Because any and a l l of them

can occur within each subject area such as science , social

studies , mathematics and language , the basic action that

must be taken in determining what capabilities are to be

learned i s one of d e f i n i n g needs , goals and f i n a l l y the

specif ic behavioral objectives.

--
~~~~~~~~
 --
- ‘~- --_ - -
.‘- ....—.- _ - - - - -- -— -v -— —- -- --.—— - -— — -- —_ - -- ,-- --_ ---—- - —--
~~

-
~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

The literature generally agrees with the principle that

instruction should be planned from the top down and that

general needs and goals should be defined before more specific

objectives are developed ; however , until recently there were

no organized methods to serve as guidelines for the instruc-

tional designer in accomplish ing this task.

Briggs points out that , for a br ief workshop of two days ,

there perhaps would be one general goal and 10 specific ob-

jectives; for a course of instruction lasting 12 weeks , there

would possibly be three general goals and 30 specific objec-

ti v es ; and f o r a n ent ire curr iculum , there could be dozens

4
of goals and hundreds of objectives.

Since there was no standard method of organizing the

objectives of a course of instruction or an entire curriculum

in a par ti c u l a r s u b j e c t or sk i ll area , Brig gs developed what

has become known as the Six-Leve l Method . This method con-

• sists of (1) needs analysis , (2 ) goa l def in ition , (3) life-

long objectives , (4) end-of-course objectives , (5) unit ob-

5
j e r t i v e s, and (6) s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r a l o bj e c t i v e s .

In needs analysis the resultant curriculum product must

be capable of being defended on the basis of statements of

the reasons why the intended population of learners need

6
that particular content and method of instruction . In the
m i l i t a r y profess ion , one method of conducting a needs analysis
is to incorporate a job content analysis.

7
 The goal definition should be consistent with the cur-

ric u lum produc t d ev elo ped by t he nee d s an a l y s i s . Goa l s c a n

be stated in behavioral terms so that assessment can be ad-

dressed di r ~~c t l y t o tLe qoals , or the goals can be stated in

n o n — b e h a v i o r a l t e r m s , 1ea’:~~ng t h e a s s e s s m e n t of g o a l a t t a i n —

~ne~~t t- a se o a rat e e v a ) u ~~t i 3 n , or t h e g o a l s can be e~~~r ossed

in n o n -b e h a v i o r a i terms wi th t h e i n t e n t of ass & ss i n q goal

a c h i e vem e n t at e ir ~~er the l e v e l o~ u n i t o b j e c t i v e s or s p e c i f i c

o bj e ct i v e s .

In s t a ti : ig ii fe — I ~~ obj e c t iv e s the long t er m p u r p o se

of the course must indicate clearly the t o t a l p r o g r a m aspect

of the instruction in the subject or skill area . If a s i n g l e

course in typing is to be sufficient for the learner to ob-

t a i n employmen t a s a typist , the objective should be stated

in such terms . In c o n t ra ~~t , other courses may only be seg-

ments of an overall educational program . For example , if a

course in algebra is the initial course i n a degree granting

program i n ma thema t ics , that specific intent should be made
clear.

End—of-course objectives serve to distinguish those per-

formances which are expected at the end of the period of

instruction . They also serve to facilitate the development

9
of Unit and spec ific objectives . Briggs believes tha t a f t e r
the end-of-course object ives have been compiled , one should next

prepare the final examination , if there is to he one. This

8
~

back-to-back inspection of the objectives arid the examina-

tion provides a comparison between objectives and assessment

10
criterion .

Unit objectives are most of ten use d to in d ica te the im-

portance of sequencing instructional units. These objec-
tives may or may not be stated in behavioral terms and their

use generally depends upon the duration and/or complexity of

the instruction being organized . Some instructional designers
may not utilize unit objectives because the structure of the

course may be adequately described by using only end-of-

course objectives and a series of specific behavioral objec-

11
tives.

As previously stated , once the learning goals have been

established , either by a job content analysis or by the
process of consensus , the next step is to further define
the goals in detail by clearly specifying the desired per-
formance or behavioral objectives. The total process is

one of working from the top downward ; broad goals are first

defined , and then more specific objectives , arranged

in a layering sequence with respect to the duration , con-

tent and complexity of the intended instruction . The “Six

Layers” of goals and objectives end with the development of
specific behavioral objectives )2

The Composition of Behavioral Objectives

The usual distinction between goals and objectives is

dependent on the level of generality of the specific statement

_ -- •_ • _ • . •~~~~~~ • • ~~~~~~~~~
__
~

and its intended purpose . Goals are indicative of educa-

• tional outcomes of a general nature that are long-range )3

Objectives are statements of specific desired outcomes that

are short range and are considered most effective when stated
in behavioral terms , so as to clearly describe what behavior
should be displayed by a student , as a result of instruction ,
to demonstrate mastery of the objective . Behavioral objec-
tives generally delineate the termina l products or terminal
performance of instruction in terms of observable , measurable

behavior )4
Before writing behavioral objectives the instructional
technologist , curriculum developer or teacher must study

F the statements of goals and determine under what circum-

stances and to what degree the student can achieve this goal.
The key question is : “How can it be determined that a stu-
15
dent has achieved the particular goal?” A properly de-

veloped objective will provide a precise description of the

student ’s achievement upon ma stering the learning implied

by the goal statement.

L By comparing the two most popular models--the Mager Model

and the Gagne-Briggs Model--the formulation of behavioral
objectives can be effectively demonstrated in understandable
terms .

Mager Model
Robert F. Mager has been credited with producing the
first generally accepted set of instructions concerning the

10
 — — •—

writing of instructional objectives. Since the original book ,

Preparing Instructional Object ives, was published in L962 ,

other works have been written; however , according to Kibler

and Bassett the contribution of Mager is evident in that
subsequent models and approaches have , for the most part ,
continued to include the basic components of his model )6
In the Mager Model the objective is “ . ..an intent com-
municated by a statement describing a proposed change in a
learner--a statement of what the learner is to be like when
17
he has successfully completed a learning experience .
Mager recommends the use of three components in composing
such descriptions:

First , identify the terminal behavior by name ;

you can specify the kind of behavior that will
be accepted as evidence that the learner has
achieved the objective .
Second , try to define the desired behavior further
by describing the important conditions under
which the behavior will be expected to occur .
Third , specify the criteria of acceptable per-
formance by describing how well the learner
must perform to be considered acceptable. 18

Kibler and Basset have interpreted Mager ’s three com-

ponents as follows :

(1) identify the action the learner will he

taking when he has achieved the objective
(e.g., to write , to speak) ;
(2) describe the relevant conditions under
which the learner will be acting (e.g.,
‘without the use of references ’); and
(3) specify how well the learner must perform
the action (e.g., ‘100 percent correct’).19
11

—~~~~~~ -- • • -
 - ------ ---
~
-- ‘I

To Mager a meaningfully stated objective is one that

effectively communicates the author ’s intent. The most use-

ful statement is one that excludes the greatest number of
possible interpretive alternatives. 20 In order to demon-
strate how to reduce the ambiguity of action words or phrases
and to reduce the number of alternative interpretations ,
21
Mager provides a contrasting list of words:

Words Open to Many Words Open to Fewer

Interpretations Interpretations
to know to write
to understand to recite
to really understand to identify
to appreciate to differentiate
to fully apprec iate to solve
to grasp the significance of to construct
to enjoy to compare
to believe to list
to have faith in to contrast

According to Mager it is acceptable to include such words

as “understand” and “appreciate ” in an objective statement;
however , the statement will not be explicit enough to be use-
ful as a behavioral objective until there is an indication
of how the sampling of the “understanding ” and “appreciating ”
will be accomplis~ied . It is imperative that the individual
writing objective statements describe clearly what the student
22
will be doing when he has achieved the instructional intent.
Even though the terminal behavior has been unequivocally
imparted to the student by the use of appropriate action
statemen ts, the specifying of the terminal act alone may not

12

_ _ _ _
~~

- - ~~~~~~~ - - -• — - — - - - -• - - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~
be enough to preclude misunderstanding . In order to state
performance objectives that convey the exact intent of the
author , Mager indicates that it is advantageous to describe
the conditions that will be imposed upon the student when
he is demonstrating his mastery of the instructional objec-
23
tive .

The following are examples of the conditions , limitation

and restrictions that could be incorporated into the text

of a behavioral objective :

Given a problem of the following class...

Given a matrix of intercorrelations...
Without the aid of references...
With the use of notes and references...
Without the aid of an electronic calculator or
other mechanical calculating device... ~24

Mager proposes that four questions should be asked in

order to identify the important aspects of the desired terminal
behavior :

1. What will the learner be provided?

2. What will the learner be denied?
3. What are the conditions under which you will
expect the terminal behavior to occur?
4. Are there any skills that you are specifically
NOT try ing to deve1o~ ? Does this objective
exclude such ski1lg?’~5

Kibler and Bassett suggest that, within the context of

the Mager Model , the following three considerations would be
useful in determining the conditions under which the learner
will be expected to demonstrate achievement :

13

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • - • -— ~~• - - •-- - - — .--~~~~~~~~ •• --

--
 1. Specify the information , tools , equ ipment ,
source materials , and anything else that will
be available to students to help them perform
the terminal behavior required of the objective .
2. Specify the information , tools , equipment ,
source m a t e r i a l s , and anything else the studen t
cannot use when demonstrating the terminal
behavior .
3. List as many of the actual conditions as pos-
sible under which the student might be expected
to demonstrate the I~ rminal behavior in a real-
life setting , and try to include as many of
them in the objective as possible. 26

Pragmatically, the writer of objectives should describe

enough relevant conditions for the objective to imply clearly

the variety of test items appropriate for sampling the
specified terminal behavior.
In the Mager Model the last component of an objective

statement is measurement criterion . Once a student has

been informed of what he is to do and the conditions under

which he must achieve the instructional objective , he should ,

according to Mager , be informed as to what the acceptable

27
level of performance will be. By specifying at least the

minimum acceptable performance level for each instructional

objective , there will consequently be a performance standard
against which the instructional program can be evaluated .
Additionally, the curriculum developer , instructional tech-
nologiet and teacher will have a means to determine if the
educational programs are successful in achieving the instruc-
tional intent.

14
 The criterion of successful performance or minimum accept-

able skill can be stated in various ways; for example, by

specify ing the time limit (if a time limit is intended) , the

minimum number of correct responses that will be acceptable ,

the n umber of principles that must be applied in a given
28
situation , or the numbe r of principles that must be identified .
The following list of performance standards extracted
from Instructional Objectives and Evaluation provides some
alternative forms of specifying the measurement criterion
component of an objective relative to the Mager model:

Minimum N umber:
“ ...must list four steps... ”
.wr .ite a l l ten words presented a c c u r a t e l y . . .”
“ ...distinguish three main ideas...”
Percent or Proportion :
“write (spell) accurately 100 percent of the
10 words presented... ”
“list 80 percent of the verbs appearing in a
200 word message... ”

Limitation of Departure from a Fixed Standard

“must be within five decibels of...”

Distinguishing Features of Successful Performance
• “ ...the radi.o plays within a one-day period...”
“ ...all balls on the paper are colored red... ”29

There are many ways of specifying excellence of perfor-

mance ; however , it is not always possible to specify a criterion
with as much detail as desired . Neverthele ss , M ager maintains
that even if an objective ’s author feels something cannot be
measured adequately, a concerted effort should be made in try-
ing to develop an appropriate method for measurement . 3°

15

--- - — - --—--— -- -
- -~ - — - - -- -— •• • —- - - - - -- - • -- -- - -- -
 In suxni ’~ r y , an objective statement in the Mager Model

is a collection of words or symbols describing an educational

intent which communicates what the learner will be doing

when demonstrating the desired level of achievement and how

the instructor will know that the intent has been accomp-

lished . Stated in another manner , behavioral objectives

effectively describe terminal behavior , when these state-
ments identif y and name the overall behavioral acts , d e f i ne

the conditions under which the behavior is to occur and

lastly define the criterion of acceptable performance .

The follow in g behavioral objective statement is an ex-

ample of a higher order behav ioral objective requiring

synthesis behavior or creative activity on the part of

the learner:

The student is to be able to prepare an analysis

of any three of the five managemen t cases given

him at the time of the examination. This analis is

!hould attemEt to discuss the cases according to

the 2rinci les developed d u r i ng the course , and

•

• ~
the student must show evidence of having considered
each problem from at least two theoretical points
of view b~ restating these in his own words.
References and ~otes~ y b e u ~~4,_and up to four
hours may be taken for com the_ three case
~~~~~ na
analyses.
-________ behavIor (task)
criterion (standard )
— con di t ions
16
~
.— - -- - - S
~~~~~
-
~~~~~~~

t
Gagne-Briggs Model
The Gagne—Briggs Model does not differ in any critical
respect from the Mager Model. The description of the com-
ponents of their operational definitions of objectives are
related to those of other authors in the field . There are ,

however , differences in the manner in which they distinguish

verbs of action from verbs used to identify the “learned
31
capability ” implied by the observed behavior .
Gagne and Briggs describe a precise objective as one
which facilitates the observation of another person and
includes a number of components which describe the

situation in which the action takes place , the limits within

which the performance will be expected to occur , and the
kind of human performance involved . The last requires
that the kind of human capacity which is to be in’-
32
ferred from the observed performance must also be described .
The specific components of the model are :

1. Action. What observable act will the learner

be doing (e.g., analyz in g , compar in g , creating) ?

• 1 2. Object. What is the learner expected to pro-

duce as a result of the performance (e.g.,
analys is , composition , painting) ?
3. Situation. An objective must specify the
features of the situation . What are the cir-
cums tances in wh ich the learner mu st demon-
strate performance (e.g., given five case
studies , given the details of an event , given
a conceptual framework) ?

17
 4. Tools and Other Constraints. How must the
action be carried out and what are the limits ,
if required , to the performance (e.g., using
available references , without the use of texts
and within one hour , using the medium of water
colors)?
5. Capability to be Learned. The inferred kind
of human capability must be stated . What is
the learned capability that the action gives
evidence of having been acquired (e.g., clas-
sifies , generates , orig inates)?33

According to Kibler and Bassett the five part model

differs from Mager ’s Model in three ways , the most important
variance being the distinction that Gagne and Brigqs makc
between verbs which identify the observable action the learner
is performing and the verbs which identify the learned capa-
bility which may be inferred from the action . The second
difference concerns Gagne and Briggs ’ inclusion of a com-
ponent referred to as the “object of the performance .” While

the object is obviously present in the Mager Model , it is

not separated from the action verb. The third difference
is the exclusion of a specification of performance criteria
in the Gagne-Briggs Model. They argue that assessment pro-

• cedures should be considered later in the instructional design

process.
As in the Mager Model the choice of verbs in the defini-
tion of objectives is of critical importance in avoiding
ambiguity . The purpose of an objective statement is to
communicate unequivocally and reliably so that two

18

• • —~- -- - - - - --~~~-•~~ •• --
 - -~~~~~~~~~~~ - - •--
•-•~~~~~ - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~-- -~~~~

literate people will agree that a specific instance of

an observed performance is or is not an example of the
performance described by the objective . It is basic to
the formulation of objectives that verbs be chosen which
accomplish the primary purpose of unequivocal and reliable
35
communications. In the Gagne-Briggs Model , there is the

important distinction which was alluded to previously con-

cerning the use of two kinds of verbs in a complete defini-
tion of an objective ; these are the action verb and the
36
verb which identifie s the learned capability .
The consistent theme throughout the literature concern-
ing the writing of behavioral objectives is that the primary
requirement of an objective is that it precisely convey the
instructional intent of the curriculum designer , instruc-
tional technologist and teacher. The concern for instruc-
tional integrity or communicative precision apparently led
Gagne and Briggs to argue that action verbs alone were too

imprecise because they did not denote the learned capability

37
which the learner had acquired .
• According to Gagne and Briggs , action verbs are un-
ambiguous when they reliably communicate observable perfor-
mances; beyond this criterion , however , no further distinc-
tions appear feasible. From the total set of verbs in the
language there are , of course , many which communicate action
precisely. However , an action verb does not in itself
identify the intellectual skill involved in a specific perfor-
38
mance .
19

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
____ _ _ _ _ -“ --
 —5- -- -~~~~~ — -~~~~~~ ---—•~~~~~~ • -— - - -
~~
-- -
~~~~~~~~~
- -
~~~~~~~~
-— - - •
- - -

In the sectioi~ entitled” Describing Human Capabilities ,”

Gagne and Briggs identify the words that can be used as the
major verb of an objective statement . The purpose of these
words is to communicate the kind of human capability one
expects to be learned , as it may be observed in the per-
39
formance exhibited by the student. Five types of intel-
lectual skills are presented under the heading of human capa-
bilities: (1) discrimination , (2) concrete concepts , ( 3 )
defined concepts , (4) rules , and (5) higher order rules.
Five rather abstract verbs that permit inference about
behavior are designated to describe these intellectua l skills:
(1) discriminates , (2) identifies , (3) classifies , (4) demon-
40 (see Table 1.)
strates , and (5) generates.
The authors concede that statements resulting from the
use of the human capability verbs have a formal character
that can sometimes be unduly cumbersome . However , dis-
tinctions are necessary and the use of the five prescribed
words for intellectual skills has the effect of preserving
41
the desired operational characteristics .
Referring again to Table 1 , the major verbs suggested
for cognitive strategy, information , motor skill , and
attitude are in order : “originates ,” “ states ,” “executes ,”
an d “ chooses.”
The ver b “ originates” impl ies the kind of intellectual
process that is considered to be involved in tasks requiring

20

- -~~~~~~ --
 TABLE 1

VERBS TO DESCRIBE HUMAN CAPABILITIES

WITH EXAMPLES OF PHRASES INCORPORATING THEM
CAPABILITY VERB EXAMPLE

1. Intellectual Discriminate s - discriminates by matching

Skill French sounds of “u” and “ou ”
Discrimina tion

Concrete Identifies - identifies by naming the

Concept root , leaf and stem or
representative plants

Defined Classifies - classifies , by using a defin—

Concept ition , the concept family

Rule Demonstrates - demonstrates , by solving

verbally stated examples,
the addition of positive and
negative membranes.
High-Order Generates - generates , by synthesizing
Ran k (Problem applica ble ru les , a para-
Solv ing ) grap h describing a person ’s
actions in a situation of
fear
2. Cognitive Originates - originates a solution to
Strategy the reduction of air pollu-
tion by applying the model
of gaseous diffusion .

3. Information States - states orally the major

issues of the Presidential
campaign of 1932
4. Motor Skill Executes - executes backing a car into
a driveway
5. Attitude Chooses - chooses playing golf as a
leisure activity .

Source : Robert M. Gagne and Leslie J. Briggs , Principles

of Instructional Design (New York : Holt , Rinehart and Winston ,
1974), p. 85.

21
problem solving or thinking . Internally organized capabilities
or cognitive strategies imply a sequence of mental operations
which permit a learner when confronted with a novel task ,
without a familiar context , to search for applicable rules
and information , formulate a general type of solu tion , and

finally attempt to apply the solution .42

In the information domain the major verb “states ” corn-
municates the king of human capability that can be observed
in some performance exhibited by a student. The verb

“ executes ” implies the capability of a highly organized

motor s k i l l which can be observed by means of a p a r t i c u l a r

performance . And lastly, since an attitude is a human capa-

bility that influences individual choice of action , the
43
major verb is “chooses.”
Gagne and Briggs emphasize the need to carefully choose
action verbs suitable for describing both the learned

capability inferred from the observed performance , and

the nature of the performance . However , in order
to reduce ambiguity, the nine human capability verbs are
44
standard in the model.
In summary , the Gagne-Briggs Model advocates the use of
a five component guide to facilitate the writing of unam-
biguous statements of objectives for varying instructional
needs. A precise behavioral objective within the context
of the model facilitates the observation of another person
and includes the components which describe the situation

22

_ _ _ _ _ --
 - --- -

-
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

in which the action takes place , the limits within which

the performance will be expected to occur , and the kind of
45 The five components are :
human performance involved .
1. Situation

2. Learned capability
3. Object
4. Action
46
5. Tools or other constraints.
It is the opinion of Kibler and Bassett that the Gagne-
Briggs Model is the most complete in the field and has the
added advantage of reflecting an operational linkage to the
47
research concerning human capabilities.
The following behavioral objective statement is an
example of a Gagne-Briggs higher-order objective requiring
synthesis behavior or creative activity on the part of the
learner :

Given a general statement of the scope and

sequences of topics , concepts , or unit objectives
for a college course in International Relations ,
the student will generate the appropriate student
objective in each of the five domains of learn -
ing , by writing such objectives , to include all
five elements for each objective , within a one-
week period .
The sam e objective statement is presented as component parts

of the model :

-
(
‘I
23

~~~~ --•---•.-S-
_ _ _
 Objective Element of Objective
a. Given a general statement a. Situation
of the scope and sequence
of topics, concepts , or
unit objectives for a col-
lege course in International
Relations
b. the student will generate b. Learned Capability
(problem-solving)
c. the appropriate student c. Object
objectives in each of the
five domains of learning
d. by writing such objectives d. Action
e. to include all five elements e. Tools , Constraints
for each objective within a and Special Requirements
one—week period .

ii ’

24

L. - - •~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I

CHAPTER III

EMPIRICAL RESEARC H

A review of the literature concerning objectives in-

dicates that the philosophical basis for behavioral ob-
jectives has been discussed and debated for many years but
that scholarly empirical research has emerged only in

the last 10 years. The extent to which empirical support

exists for the use of behavioral objectives in facilitating
the learning process is subject to controversy . Empiric-
ally, the experimental literature does not appear to demon-
strate a consistent advantage in the use of behavioral
objectives ) However , before proceeding , it must be pointed
out that several scholars who have recently reviewed the
available experimental literature concluded that many of the
studies cited contain numerous theoretical and methologi—
2
cal weaknesses.

Survey of the Research

Survey 1
J.P. Byers, et al., provides the most comprehensive

summary of the current state of empirical findings concern-

ing behavioral objectives. Over 150 experimental articles,
theses and dissertations were examined with the intent of ,
among other things , producing a theor etical rationale for
the prediction of the positive effects of behavioral ob-
jectives on learning.

_ _ _
 -
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There appear to be four particularly key areas of

concern for the curriculum designer , instructional tech-
nologist or teacher with respect to the use of behavioral
objectives. These are the interrelationship between the
student’s possession of objectives and subsequent learning ;
the student ’s possession of objectives and learning efficiency ;
the form in which the objectives are stated and subsequent
learning ; and the teacher ’s possession of objectives and
subsequent student achievement .3

Because of the rather extensive portion of the con-

temporary educational literature devoted to either praising
or damning the use of behavioral objectives , I anticipated
that there would be an extensive body of empirical knowledge
that would serve to specify the conditions under which be-
havioral objectives could effectively be used to enhance
the learning process. Regrettably, as the conclusions of
the Byers , et al., study indicate , careful examination of
the empirical literature did not produce either consistent
or particularly confident results concerning the effective-
ness of using behavioral objectives. 4

• Did the possession of behavioral objectives by students

aid in the learning process?

Investigation of the effects of student’s pos-

session of behavioral objectives on learning pro-
vides no conclusive findings , but current results
favo r the preliminary observation that no differ-
ential effects on learning can be attributed to
students ’ use of objectives. 5

26
 With only 30 studies , of the 71 examined in this area ,
reporting that the use of behavioral objectives improved
learning significantly , the research did not clearly support
the use of behavioral objectives. 6 Howev er , Kibler and
Briggs, commenting on the same findings , contend that the
“ ...prevailing logic of instructional systems design suggests
that students provided with performance objectives should
demonstrate superior learning... .

Does the form in which the objectives are stated aid

in subsequent learning?

While inconclusive , investigation of the effects

of objective form (specific versus general state-
ments) suggest there are no differential effects
on student learning attributable to the way in
which objectives are stated. 8

Again the research is inconclusive because,of the 13

studies reviewed in which the form of the objective served
as the independent variable , only four reported that students
provided with objectives written in behavioral terms achieved
meaningfully higher scores. The remaining studies reported
no significant difference between the use of specific or
general objectives. 9 One of the apparent problems in
examining the studies was the lack of information provided
by the authors concerning the operational definitions for
specific and general objectives. Once more , Kibler and
Bassett maintain that,although the empirical data is incon-
clusive , there are logical grounds for the continued use
of behavioral objectives)0

27

-•• --
- - -- - • -~~~~~ - • ~~ - •-• - --
-
--- -• - •~ - •S ~~~~~
-

••
 -

~~~

Did the possession of behavioral objectives by teachers

aid in subse quent student achievement?

While inconclusive , present investigations suggest

that it may make little difference whether or not
teachers possess objectives. 11

Even though there appear to be sound reasons for pro-

viding teachers with behavioral objectives, of the seven
studies examined in which the teachers ’use of objectives
served as an independent variable , none provided evidence
indicating that there were significant effects on student
achievement )2 Although the research indicated that student
performance did not increase as expected as a function of
providing teachers with objectives , Kibler and Bassett main-
tain there was certainly no debilitating effect on student
achievement. 13

Did the possession of behavioral objectives by stu-

dents influence learning efficiency?

While inconclusive, i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the ef-

fects of behavioral objectives on efficiency of
learning (in terms of time ) suggest that whether
students are provided with objectives is not an
influential factor on the time required for
learnin g . 14

One of the ostensible advantages for providing behavioral

objectives was because it was felt that students would be
assisted in directing their efforts towards behaviors
necessary for mastery of a given course of instruction . How-
ever , of the 11 studies in which time was a dependent

28

~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •— --
*- -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - • -- -- - • - - - - • -- -- - --~~~~~~~~~~~ --- -- • •~~~~~ ••---~~~~~

 -‘

variable , eight studies reported no difference in learning

time between students provided behavioral objectives and those

not provided objectives, while only three studies reported that

15
the use of objectives meaningfully reduced learning time .
Although the expectation was not realized , it is the opinion
of Kibler and Bassett that “ . ..reason favors an expected

increase in learning efficiency with the use of objectives. ~16

Survey 2
In a 1976 review of the experimental literature , J.

Hartley and I. K. Davis examined those studies which consid-

ered the effect of deliberately teaching students , and/or
teac hers , how to utilize behavioral objective s as aids to
learning or teaching. Paradoxically , no significant advan-
tage was reported in the available research literature con-
cerning the training of students in the use of objectives;
however , the training of teachers in the use of objectives
was found to enhance subsequent student learning. 17 This
could become a key contemporary issue, because there are
prominent scholars in the field of instructional technology

who believe that the prima ry use of behavioral obj ectives

should be in curriculum and course design.
Hart ley and Davis use teaching strategies , task char-
acteristics, an d learner ch arac teris tics a s varia bl es to
summarize their review of the research literature concerning
behavioral objectives.

(
-
•
29
 .--~~~~~~~~ -—- -- -- - • 5--5- --- ----- - ----•- - -— -- - 5 - -
—-- - ~~~-
• •

~~

Teaching strategies: Objectives would seem to

work best when they are salient to the in struc-
tional task. Several studies have demonstrated
a greater recall of prose material when instruc-
tional objectives are used by the subject as
directions to learn specific subsets of material.
The research also suggests that disclosing ob-
jectives to students prior to traditional types
of teaching is more advantageous than disclosing
them prior to nontraditional teaching situations
like programmed instruction , computer-assisted
instruction , etc . It would seem that the closely
structured nature ~ f carefully developed materials
tend to make objectives like pretests - - su per -

fluous , whereas the explicitness of objectives

prior to more loosely formed and more dynamic
material help them to serve as useful “organizers. ”

Tas k ch ar acte r i s t ic s: .Behavioral objectives..

do not appear to be useful , in terms of u l t i m a te
post test scores, in learning tasks calling for
knowledge and comprehension . On the other hand ,
objectives do appear to be more u s e f u l in higher
level l e a r n i n g t a s k s calling for analysis , syn-
thesis and evaluation . Furthermore , o b j e c t i v es
appear to reduce the requirement for reasoning
in some tasks , and they sometime s have an inter-
fering effect on tasks calling for problem solving
skills.
...
..
Learner characteristics: Students of middle
ability. appear to profit more from being given
behavioral objectives than students of higher or
lower ability. Furthermore , it would seem that
the possession of objectives can reduce anxiety....
Male students from a high socioeconomic back-
ground achieved significantly more when given
objectives than students from other backgrounds
or of the opposite sex... More independent and .

less conscientious students would appear to bene-

fit more from perspective and structure that
objectives can give to a task.l9

It would appear , according to Hartley and Davis, that

the possession of behavioral objectives by a student does
have a beneficial effect on learning , but the consequence
is less meaningful than many advocates claim . Interestingly ,

30

- —•
-• ~~~~--•~~~~~~~~ - - - -- ~~~~~~~ - _ - — — -
• -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~ --— ~~~~~~~~~~~~ • — •~~~~~~~~~~ - —~~~~~~~~~~ - - - ~~~~ - -
-
- -5

the level of education did not appear to affect the effec-

tiveness of behavioral objectives, nor did the length of the
period or course of instruction . Also , the topic or type

of subject matter such as the physical or ~ocia1 sciences

did not seem to be a factor. The result of the Hartley-

Davis survey would therefore indicate that behavioral ob-

jectives are useful pre-instructional strategies which
perhaps could best be used in s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g that the

student be explicitly informed of the task. Additionally .

the use of objectives appears to be most appropriate when

p r e f a c i n g extended periods of instruction which typically

have a dominant overall structure .2°

Survey 3

To t h i s point a l a r g e number of claims have been made

in a r g u i n g the case s for and a g a i n s t the use of behavioral

objectives. Of the se claims , two are of particular interest

and are the subject of a review of the research literature

by R. F. Milton .
Not only are these claims repeated time and again,
but they are apparently in direct conflict. Milton points
out that those who support the use of behavioral objectives ,
such as Gagne and Mage r , typically espouse that “ . . . be—
havioral objectives clearly indicate to students what is
required of them , and as a result student performance
improves. ”21 In contrast , those who challenge the effective-
ness of behavioral objective s , such as Arstine and Raths ,

31
 - -

characteristically state that “ ...behavioral objectives

discourage students from expanding their horizons by en-
couraging them to confine their learning to specified ob-
jectives. ”22
Since in the final analysis it is an empirical ques tio n
as to whether or not behavioral objectives are of educational
value , Milton presents the evidence in support of the two
conflicting claims and also provides possible explanations
for the contradictory evidence.

Do behavioral objectives in the possession of students

improve learning performance? —

A number of studies have described research which lend

support to the claim that providing students with behavioral
objectives improved learning , however Milton ’ s review in-
dicates that a substantial number of research efforts did
• not demonstrate improved student performance . A meaning ful
point h er e th ough , is the f a c t that in none of these in-

stances did the availability of behavioral objectives appear

23
to detract from student performance .

In an attempt to explain the anomalies, Milton again

reviewed the various studies. He noted in one experi-

ment in which the availability of behavioral objectives
had had no apparent effect , that the instructions were pre-
sented to the students in written form and could have actually
been ignored. The point is that it is not s u f f i c i e n t to
simply provide the objectives; the students must necessarily

32

_ _
 24
be aware of them . A follow-up study , in which it was
noted whether or not the control group read the objectives
provided , concluded that so long as students were aware
of the behavioral objectives, student performance was en-
hanced .25
Milton also suggests a n umber of additional conditions
under which behavioral objectives might be ineffective :

a. If the objectives are not sufficiently

clear (too general) or too ambiguous to
be of particular assistance .
b. If the objectives are of extreme facility
or difficulty . (The readability of instruc-
tional material may often be related to
this condition.)

c. If the instructional material is not struc-

tured in such a way as to ensure that the
specified objectives (and related test
items ) can be mastered (e.g., instructional
material not sufficiently relevant).
d. If students are so highly motivated that
they are likely to master the objectives
regardless of whether or not they are
specified . (The degree to which the in-
structional material interests the stu-
dent is likely to relate to this condi-
tion .)26

Do behavioral objectives in the possession of students

• discourage them from expanding their intellectual horizons?

Unfortunately, there are few studies available for re-

view which adequately address the complex nature of the

question , and those that do present findings that appear
contradictory .

33

----a
 -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -- - . - —. ~
•-5
~~~~~
—-•.---— _

One study concluded that the use of behavioral objec-

tives enhanced student performance in relation to specified
objectives without adversely affecting or distracting from
incidental learning performance relative to un sp ecifi.~ 1
objectives within a lesson .27 Another similar study
reported that the use of behavioral objectives enhanced

student performance relative to specified objectives, but

in contrast to the previous study , incidental learning ,

28
relative to unspecified objectives was adversely affected .
A third study co ncluded , a s the previous two had , that the
use of behavioral objectives enhanced ~~~~~~~~~~ learning ;
however , in contrast to the previous findings concerning
unspecified objectives, incidental learning was actually
enhanced by the use of specified behavioral objectives. 29
Other pertinent studies describe the effects of the
placement of questions (assuming questions serve the same
function as behavioral objectives) within the text of a
lesson . Generally, the learning of relevant information
was enhanced by the use of inserted questions , post—questions
being more effective than pre—text questions. Also it was
reported that incidental learning tended to be improved
by the use of post-questions but not by the use of pre-
questions , which in some cases reduced incidental learning. 30
From these contrasting studies it is interesting to
note that behavioral objectives inserted prior to a related
text appear to act as “orienting stimuli” and serve to

34

-~~~~~~~~ - - - -~~~ -5-— ~~~~~ - - -—_ - • - -

- - --5-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 focus the student ’s attention toward the relevant material ,
thereby enhancing relevant learning while ostensibly de—
pressing incidental learning. Conversely , behavioral objec-
tives presented immediately after the related text appear
to operate as “reinforcing stimuli” without adversely af-
fecting the incidental learning that has already taken place.31
As Milton ’s review of the research indicates , a variety
of conditions determine whether or not behavioral objectives
improve relevant learning and adversely affect or enhance
incidental learning . This complex situation is exacerbated
by an apparent tendency of problem oversimplification by
those who adamantly support or oppose the use of behavioral
objectives.

Empirical E f f e ct

As p r e v i o u s l y stated , the extent to which empirical

support e x i s t s f o r the use of behavioral objectives in

f a c i l i t a t i n g the learning process is the subject of con-

tinuing controversy. While behavioral objectives have

been shown to specifically facilitate learning in a limited
number of studies , the empirical evidence does not gener-
ally demonstrate a consistent advantage for their use, nor
do the findings confidently delineate the conditions under
which behavioral objectives should be used.
It appears , then , in an attempt to improve the efficacy
of behavioral objectives , proponent educators have m ad—
vertently encouraged the use of objectives beyond their

35

I ______________

L -- --
~~~~
. -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—-
~~~~~~~
— • — -
~~~~~~
-• - • -
~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - • ~~~~~~~ — • - ~~~~~~~ — ~~~~~~
— - - - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- • - — -
~~~~
-—
~~~~~~~
-— - —
~~~~~~~
-- -
 - - - 5— -- — - - - 5 - --- - — - - - • •- _ ----- -_ - - -— ---—•~~- --- _
- -.

-
empirically determined value . However , the significance of
a great many of the findings must be mitigated by the
conceptual and methodologi -~ l flaws attributed to much of
the available research .32 Since much of the experimental
literature presented inconclusive results and the remaining
studies were often diametrically contradictory , it would ,
perhaps, not be prudent to judge the value of behavioral
objectives solely on empirical grounds .

36

- — -
_ “ ‘-‘ “
~~~~ ~~ ~~~~
-
 CHAPTER IV

INSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON

Ideally, the identification and definition of behavioral

objectives serve as important steps in the design of instruc-
tion by providing guidelines for the development of instruc-
tion , and for devising measures of performance that facili-
tate the determination of whether or not course or curriculum
objectives have been satisfied . The instructional intents
are frequently formulated as a set of purposes for a course ;
these are then further refined and finally transformed to
operational terms by the process of defining the specified
behavioral objectives. These behavioral objectives then
serve as a basis for evaluating the success of instruction
by describing the planned outcomes of the intended instruction .
Throughout this paper the theoretical importance of
stating instructional objectives as learning outcomes and
of defining each objective in terms of observable student
behavior have been emphasized . The procedures for preparing ,
selecting , and utilizing behaviorally defined objectives have
been described using both the Mager and Gagne—Briggs Modele .
Selected examples of course design from the Air Command and
Staff College and the Army Command and General Staff College
will be presented to demonstrate contemporary variations
in usage of behavioral objectives at the higher echelons of
military education .

37

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
 -—-5 — -- - 5- -• - 5 - -_ - --~~ —-5 -5
~

Air Command and Staff College

Of the two military educational systems examined , the
Air Command and Staff College , located at Maxwell Air Force
Base , Alabama , currently has the most comprehensive oehavior-
ally-designed curriculum .
The example will present , in order , the College ’s mission ,
its overall instructional goals , the Command and Management
Department ’s area objectives , and the Command and Management De-
partment ’s Command and Leadership phase objective s, followed
by the specific behavioral objectives developed for a parti-
cular lesson within the phase and area cited above.
The most general component is the mission statement
which was derived from a “needs analysis” that incorporated
1
a field grade officer job content analysis.

Mission : The mission of the Air Command and

Staff College is to develop the professional
knowledge and skills of selected field grade
officers to prepare them for the assumption
of increasing responsibility , both on the
staff and in command .2

The definitions of curriculum goals are consistent with

the product of the “needs analysis ,” the mission statement.
Goals are , in this instance , expressed in non—behavioral
terms with the intent of assessing goal achievement at the
level of unit or specific objectives. 3

38
 - --

COURSE GOALS :
COMMON STAFF SKILLS :
1. To further prepare staff officers to
reason logically, solve problems effec-
tively, communicate clearly and organize
effectively for executive decision .
2. To develop an understanding of the
organization , policies and programs through
which the Air Force functions.
3. To develop field grade officer leader-
ship and management skills.
SPECIFIC STAFF SKILLS :
4. To develop Air Command and Staff
graduates with skills for employing
aerospace forces against the background
of historical and contemporary per-
spectives on warfare .
SPECIALIST SKILLS :
5. To expand an officer ’s knowle dge
of a functional specialty and increase
his aptitude , insights , and analytical
skills within that discipline . This
iridepth instruction must serve to in-
crease an ACSC graduate ’s effectiveness
within his area of specialization and
reduce the transition time required in
his next assignment.
BROADEN KNOWLEDGE OF THE AIR FORCE:
6. To develop and emphasize knowledge
• consisten t with action officer , mid-
level supervisor , and unit command
responsibilities.
BROADEN VIEW BEYOND THE AIR FORCE :
7. To develop an understanding of the
world environment as it affects the Air
Force officer ’s knowledge and application
of skills and to increase his sensitivity
to the national security process.
RESEARCH :
8. To research , document findings and
provide insight and recommendations to
the DOD/Air Force on functional topics.4
39
 - —-----_ -5 - -—- - _ - --5- _ - - - 5 — - 5 - •--5--.- - -- - -- -
-- ---5.— -- ~~~~--5• -5- - — - 5 - - - - -_ -

-
The goal definitions are followed by area and phase
objectives which are closely related to the “end-of-
course” and “ unit” objectives used by Briggs to describe
the Six-Level—Method of organizing the objectives of a
5
course or curriculum .
The area or “end—of-course ” objective s distinguish those
performances which are expected at the end of the period of
instruction . They also assist in the development of unit
and specific objectives.
.Area 2: Command and Management
Objective : At the end of this phase the stu-
dent should be able to:
1. Apply selected nonquantitative decision
making techniques in deriving solutions to
management problems (supports Goal 1).
2. Comprehend the use of selected quanti-
tative techniques as aids in interpreting
analytical studies (supports Goal 1).
3. Comprehend the structures and purpose
of existing DOD/AF staffs (supports Goal 2).
4. Apply field grade officer leadership
skills in the Air Force environment (sup-
ports Goal 3).
5. Apply field grade officer management
skills in the Air Force environment (sup-
ports Goal 3).
6. Comprehend logistics support to Air
Force operations (supports Goal 4).
7. Comprehend the impact of current Air
Force programs and policies on mid-level
supervisors and commanders (supports Goal 6).
8. Comprehend the impact of national at-
titudes and policies on Defensç Resource
allocations (supports Goal 7).°

40

- - - 5- . --- -5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -5 • - 5 - 5~~ • - ~~~~~~~~— ~~~~~ —-5

- •- - -
~ - -

The phase or “unit” objectives are used primarily to

indicate the importance and sequencing of instructional
units. At the Air Command and Staff College , phase objec-
7
tives are stated in general behavioral terms .

.. .Phase 2: Command and Leadership

Objective : At the end of this phase , the
student should be able to:
1. Comprehend the impact of attitudes of
Air Force people on the leader.

2. Comprehend leadership c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
which enhance effective and proper exer-
cise of authority and responsibility .
3. Apply leadership techniques in a sim-
ulated command and staff situation .
4. Comprehend directives, policies , and
programs pertinent to command and s t a f f
leade rship. 8

The development of objectives in the present example

has evolved from an overall mission statement of the institu-
tion from which consistent educational goals were derived .
These broad goals were further refined in terms of the major
curriculum subject areas by stating general area behavioral

objectives. Subsequently, objectives were developed which

delineated the general behavioral performance requirements
for the p a r t i c u l a r sub—course or phase of instruction. The
f i n a l step involved the stating of specified behavioral
objectives for a specific lesson .

41

--5- .- ----- — -----_ - _

-- —-- 5- -- - -- --•
~~~~~ - -5- - - - -— — ---- --- -- _ - - - - -5
 M30303- 2S Group Problem Solving - Nominal
Group Technique

• Obje ctives:
1. Apply the Nominal Group Technique in a
problem—solving scenario.
1.1 Explain the steps of the Nominal Group
Technique (NGT).
1.2 Explain the situations in which NGT is
appropriate.
1.3 Participate as a group member in an
NGT exercise. 9

The i n s t r u c t i o n a l sys tem design techn iq ues used by the Air

Command and Staff College focus on objective statet~ents that

accurately indicate instructional intent and desired student

performance . Unmanageable lists of specific learning tasks

are avoided by writing objective statements which are

general enough to provide guidelines for teaching w i t h o u t
overly constraining the instructional process , yet s p e c i f i c

enough to accurately state the behavior that students are

expected to demonstrate when the objective s have been

s a t i s f i’~d.

It is interesting to note that although the specific be-

havioral objectives used by the Air Command and Staff Col-
lege are intended to specify the desired learning outcome ,
they were not intended to i n f e r t h a t incidental l e a r n i ng
was not expected . Curriculum evaluation found that,in some
case s, information that was riot directly related to a

42
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

specific behavioral objective was ignored in the process

of satisfying what were perceived as being only terminal
objectives. In theory , the curriculum designers had in-
tended that the specified behavioral objectives would serve
not only as terminal indicators but would also concurrently
act as enabling objectives to stimulate incidental learning )0

Army Command and General Staff College

The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College , located
at Fort Leavenworth , Kansas, is in a period of transition
concerning the use of behavioral objectives. At the time
of this writing , however , the four departments had imple-
mented a program that emphasized the stating of instructional
objectives as learning outcomes and intended student per-
formance indicators.
At the Army Command and General Staff College , in con-
trast to the Air Command and Staff College , it is more diffi-
cult to trace the path of curriculum design from the in-
stitutional mission statement to the specific lesson be-
havioral objectives. The example will present , in order ,
the College ’s mission , its functions , the Management course de-
scription , and the Management and Force Development sub-course
goals , followed by the specific behavioral objectives de-
veloped for a particular lesson within the sub-course cited
above .

43
 -5- —--5—~- - - --—- —— ---5— - — -5—-—— -- - - -

At Fort Leavenworth the mission statement has also been

derived from a “needs analysis ” ; however , to date no serious
job content analysis has beer~ conducted .

Mission : The mission of the Command and General

Staff College is to provide instruction for
officers of the Active Army and Reserve corn-
ponents , worldwide , so as to prepare them for
duty as field grade commanders and principal 12
staff officers at brigade and higher echelons.

Although not as extensive as the goals stated for the

Air Command and Staff College , the instructional goals
at Fort Leavenworth stated as functions , are consistent
with the institutional mission statement.

Functions:
The College will perform the following fun~ tions:
a. Prepare officers to -
(1) Command battalions , brigades and
equivalent-sized units in peace of war.
(2) Train these units to accomplish
their assigned mission .
(3) Employ and sus tain weapon systems to
optimize their effect in the conduct of
combined arms operations.
(4) Serve as principa l staff officers from
• brigade through division to include sup-
port commands, and as staff officers of
higher echelons , including major Army ,
joint , unified , or combined headquarters.
(5) Manage manpower , equipment , money ,
and time with maximum efficiency . .. 13.

In th’s instructiona l scheme , function statements or

general instructional goals are followed by course description

44

— -5- - -- - 5 -
 and sub—course goals. This procedure is in contrast to the

instructional system design techniques of the Air Command and

S t a f f College in which progressively more well defined end-of—

course (area) and unit (phase ) objectives pragmatically

follow the general instructional goals.

N Course 2 - Management
Upon completion of this course the student
will have acquired a body of knowledge pertain-
ing to the procedures ,methods , and techniques
of Army resource management s u ff i c i e n t to enable
its use . Included are several analytical tech-
niques , supported by automation , which enable
the commander/manager to more efficiently and
and effectively manage his resources in con-
sonance with current tactical and logistical
doctrine . The student will acquire a basic
understanding of the process by which Army
force requirements and the supporting finan-
cial/manpower requirements are determined .
Selected case studies are used to enable the
student to apply the techniques of resource
management within fiscal constraints , to develop
force alternatives , and to evaluate tradeoffs
and performance . 14

In behavioral terms the preceding statement has l i t t l e

apparent value in distinguishing those performances which are

expected of a student at the end of a course of instruction .
Subcourse goals for the Management and Force Development
sub-course are stated more in terms of a course description
in combination with general non-behavioral objectives )5

Management and Force Development Subcourse goals:

This subcourse is designed to give the student
a knowledge of resource management , force develop-
men t , operations research/systems analysis , auto-
matic data processing management information

45

-5- — - -- -5- -.
. - - - — - -5 -
— --5 ~~~~~~~~~ - -• -- --— -~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~
 systems . The student will understand the process
by which the Army force s t r u c t u r e is determined
and the development of the requirements for the
associated financial and manpower resources; use
selected analytical techniques to solve manage-
ment problems ; and understand selected automatic
data processing management information systems )-6

The identification and definition of performance objec-

tives are important steps in the design of instruction . The
design process , however , should begin , as previously stated ,
by establishing the learning goals either by job content
analysis or by consensus. Ideally, the next step is to
further define the goals in more detail by accurately stat-
ing the general objectives. The final step is to develop
the specified behavioral objectives. The total process is
one of working from the top downward )7
The terminal learning objectives , as they are called
at Fort Leavenworth , appear to have been developed in iso-
lation and not as part of an overall instructional systems
design .

Lesson 10. Economic Analysis

1. Terminal Learning Objective
a. Task: Explain economic analysis terms .
Condition: Given specified terms ; from
memory...
Standard: Brief explanation of five
specified terms...
Reference:

46

—------5— ---—--- - - -- - —- - - • - - - — - 5 — - ----- -- -5 — —---— --- ------- - ---- — -- 5-- .-

-
 b. Task: Explain the components of the
economic analysis process.
Condition: Given the same components
of the economic analysis process;
from memory...
Standard: Brief explanation of any
three of seven components...
Reference:
c. Task: Identify economic analysis
components.
Conditions: Given a brief economic
a n a l y s i s problem scenario and the
seve n components of the economic
analysis process.
Standard: Brief explanation of all
components contained in the scenario...
Reference:
d. Task : Recommend a decision.
Condition: Given a brief economic
analysis problem scenario and a DOD
discount factor table .
Standard: Decision supported by ap-
plication of discounting sunk cost ,
residual/terminal value and life
cycle cost computations without pro-
cedural/logic error...
Reference: ... 18

By specifying the task , condition , and standard , the

preceding technique does clearly indicate instructional in-

tent and expected student performance in both lower and

higher order skills. However , over the period of an entire

course , the process of r e p e a t e d l y r e f e r r i n g to what appear

to be a cumbersome , simplistic and perhaps overly explicit

series of tasks , conditions and standards could possib~ y

constrain both the instructional and learning process.

The development of objectives in the Command and General
S t a f f College example did not appear to be an evolutionary
process. There was no apparent sequential flow from the

47

- -- - 5 - . - - - -- - — - -~~~~~ - - -- —- - -
- - - -— -5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
mission and functions statements - to the process of develop-
ing specific behavioral objectives for particular sub-course
lessons. There was an apparently abrupt transition from the
broad goals to specific behavioral objectives that fosters
the impression that the process of developing behavioral
objectives was directive in n ature and not an o r i g i n a l com-
ponent of the overall instructional system design at the

college .

Contrast

There is a distinct difference between the two institu-

tions ’ use of behavioral techniques. The Air Command and

Staff College has an educational system which is designed
to incorporate the principles of behavioral technique s
from top to bottom . There are conspicious and progres-

sively more specific linkages from the institutional

mission statemen t down to the specified behavioral ob-

jectives of a particular lesson . These progressive linkages

appear to be missing at the Army Command and General Staff

College .
Simplistic and overly explicit objectives are avoided
at the Air Command and Staff College by the considered de-
velopment of objective statements which are general enough
to provide instructional guidelines without unduly con-
straining the process of teaching. They are also specific

enough to clearly state the behavior the student ...s expected

 -5 - - - -5 - -. -— -~~~~~~~~- - - --5.- •.- -- ~~~~~~~ ---~~~~~~~~ -
--5- • --
- .- -5,
- - --- 5-
~~~~~~~~~

to demonstrate . While , at the Army Command and General Staff

College , the specification of tasks , conditions , and stan—

dards does clearly indicate instructional intent and ex-
pected student performance for a specific lesson ; neverthe-
less , there appears to be a problem with the overspecifica-
tion of objectives. As previously stated , this could , over

a period of time , constrain both the instructional and learn-

ing processes.
The following outlines provide a condensed perspective
of the two c o n t r a s t i n g models. In the first outline notice
how the objec tives are sequentially derived from the top
down and are suppo r t i v e from the bottom up.

ACSC
Mission (institutional)

Goals (educational goals)

Area objectives (end-of-course objectives) , (directly
support one or more of the goals) .
Phase objectives (unit objectives ), (directly support

one or more of the area objectives) .

Lesson objectives (specific behavioral objectives) ,
(directly support one or more of the phase objectives) .
CGCS
Mission (institutional)
Functions (goals)

49

_
 • — ------
~~~~~ - • • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
- 5- ’

Course descriptions
Sub-course goals
objectives)
Lesson objectives (specified behavioral

50
-

1
 -5 .-- - - _~~~~~~
-5 - -
--- ~~~~~~~ --5-

-
CHAPTER V

THE SYNTHESIS OF THE ARGUMENT

Behavioral objectives , in the purest sense,are deliberately

designed to facilitate learning and to engender expectation
toward the educational task . They are , perhaps , best con-
sidered as an attempt to improve both the quality and effec-
tiveness of teaching . It is argued,in Chapter II , that by
setting out what the student is expected to achieve , results
can be brought more into line with expectations. Ostensibly,

in order to inform the instructors of what is expected of

them and to communicate what a student should be able to do
at the completion of the learning tasks, great care must be
exercised in defining and writing objectives as unambiguously
as possible.
Mager suggested that an objective , at a minimum , should
identify the kind of behavior that will be accepted as evi-
dence t h a t the objective has been achieved , define the impor-
tant conditions under which the behavior is expected to occur ,
and specify the standard which will be used to determine
whether this performance is acceptable ) To Gagne and Briggs
a precise behavioral objective facilitates the observation
of another person . It includes the components which describe
the situation in which the action takes place , the limits
within which the performance will be expected to occur , and
2
the kind of human performance involved .

51

- . - -- - —-5 — -~~~~~~~~~ ••— - —

 -5 -.---—

As a result of the work of educators such as Mager and

Gagne , a whole technology of writing objectives has evolved ,
replete with competing classifications and taxonomies, which ,
has, if nothing else , perhaps inspired instructors to think
3
about what objectives mean . There are au thors who m a i n t a i n
that “ ...at the root of the behavioral objective movement...
is the elementary notion of ‘operationalism ’ , which replace
the intangible phenomena such as ‘understands ’ with a more
4
tangible phenomena that can be observed and measured .”
Theoretically, behavioral objectives have a number
of different functions. They can serve in various ways as
guides to teaching and curriculum design , as well as guides
for analysis and evaluation . Additionally , they have an
important professed role as preinstructional strategies ,
in which they stimulate learning . Ostensibly , behavioral
objectives give direction to learning through their intro-
ductory role , by providing an overall learning set for what
is to follow .
Ideally, instruction should be planned from the top down ,
and general needs and goals should be defined before more
specific objectives are developed . Once the institutional needs
have been derived and broad educational goals are developed ,
the next step is to further define the goals in terms of
more specific objectives. The final step is to accurately
5
sp cify the desired behavioral performance outcome .

52

-5-- —- 5 - 5 - - 5- - -
-5 - - - -5- ------
 -- --- -- -- -- - -•r- - 5 - 5 - -•-5
5 ’
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

In the process of developing progressively more specific

objectives, care should be taken to avoid long lists of
specific learning tasks , p a r t i c u l a r l y at advanced levels
of education . Gronlund has indicated t h a t behavioral ob-
jectives must be general enough to provide instructional
guidelines , without unduly constraining the instructional
process , while at the same time specific enough to accurately
indicate expected student performance . “This approach pro-
vides for the inclusion of learning outcomes of all types
and at all levels - ranging from the simplest to the most
complex .
Since all educators do not view effective teaching as
being dependent on predetermined , specific , behaviorally
defined objectives , scholars have both praised and damned
the use of behavioral objectives as instructional strategies
and as aids in curriculum design . The controversy was by
no means settled by the findings provided in the contemporary
empirical literature . The research has actually not kept
pace with the proliferation of behavioral objective usage.
In an attempt to improve the efficacy of behavioral objec-
tives , proponent educators appear to have inadvertently
encouraged the use of objectives beyond their empirically
ascertained value .
There are strong , prevailing, theoretical arguments with-
in the l i t e r a t u r e that promote the logic of using behavioral

53
 -‘

objectives; however , an enervating controversy persists

concerning the extent to which empirical support exists for
the application of behavioral theory to the learning process.
If , as the preponderance of the research has suggested to
date , the use of behaviorally defined objectives is not a
critical variable in the learning process, what is critical
needs to be defined . Although behavioral objectives have
been proven to categorically enhance learning in a limited
number of studies , the empirical evidence did not demon-

strate a congruent advantage for their use , nor did the

findings confidently delineate the conditions under which

behavioral objectives should be used .
As indicated in Chapter III , the overall significance
of the empirical findings must be mitigated by the con-
ceptual and methodological weaknesses attributed to the
available research . Because the results presented in the
experimental literature were , to a significant degree , both
inconclusive and contradictory , the value of behavioral
objectives should perhaps not be assessed solely on
empirical grounds.
Until empirical evidence is available in which confidence
can be ascribed , there are strong rational and functional
arguments that have been presented in the literature which
promote the use of behavioral objective s in the instructional
system design process. However , these rational arguments

-
-
54
 -- - -- - -
~~
- -- —— -- - - - -- - —-— ---- -. -----5— - — - -- - --

in favor of behavioral object ives could best be ameliorated

by suggesting that behavioral objectives be considered one
of several educational tools available to the military
educator. With credible , empirically derived knowledge con-
cerning the advantages and limitations of behavioral objec-
tives and the conditions under which they can be used most
effectively, military curriculum designers and instructors
could then rationally determine whether or not this tool
is likely to be useful in their own particular educational
situation .

(
55

.-
I - - ------- - --~ - - . - —.----
~ ---.- —-5—---- - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
- - - - - - --- ---- -----.- - _ _ _ _
~ -- --5 - - - - -_ ~ -~~~ -- - 5—— - - 5-5-5-- - -5 — -
-

-
NOTE S

CHAPTER II
1. Robert M. Gagne and Leslie J. Briggs , Principles
of Instructional Design (New York : Holt , Rinehart and
Winston , 1974) , pp. 4— S.
2. Ibid., pp. 6—9.
3. Robert M. Gagne , The Conditions of Learning (New
York : Holt , Rinehart and Winston , 1976 ), pp. 26—28.

4. Leslie J. Briggs , ed., Instructional Design, Principles

and Applications (Englewood C l i f f s , Educational Technology ,
1977) , p. 99.

5. Ibid., pp. 101—109.

6. I b i d . , p. 101.
7. Ibid., pp. 101—102.

8. Ibid., pp. 102—103.

9. Ibid., pp. 103—104.

10. Ibid. , p . l f ls .
11. Ibid., pp. 107—109.

12. Ibid. , pp. 109—110.

13. Gagne and Briggs , Principles , pp. 76-77.
14. Briggs , pp. 54—55.
15. Ronald E. Bassett snd Robert J. Kibler , “Writing
Performance Objectives ,” in Leslie J. Briggs , ed., Instruc—
• tional Design, Principles and Applications (Englewood Cliffs:
Educational Technology , 1977), p. 63.

16. Ibid., pp. 52 , 63—64.

17. Robe r t F. Mager , Preparing Instructional Objectives

(Palo Alto : Fearon , 1962) , p. 3.
18. Ibid., p. 12.
19. Bassett and Kibler , p. 64.
20. Mager , pp. 10—11.

56

-. -- 5- -5 -- - -
--

-- - - - -5- - -
-
_ _ _
- - ---5 - -
--
-- - - - - -- -
~~~~~~ --5 -’
- -

21. Ibid., p. 11.

22. Bassett and Kibler , p. 65.
23. Mager , p. 11.
24. Ibid., pp. 25—26 .
25. Ibid., p. 26.
26. Ibid., p. 27.
27. Bassett and Kibler , p. 66.
2 8. Mager , p. 4 4 .
29. Ibid., pp. 44—51.
30. Robert J. Kibler , et al., Instructional Objectives
Evaluation (Boston : Allyn and Bacon , 1974), pp. 40-41.
31. Mager , pp. 50—51.
32. Basset and Kibler , “Writing, ” pp. 67— 68.
33. Gagne and Briggs , Principles, pp. 79-80.
34. Ibid., p. 80.
35. Bassett and Kibler , “Writings ,” pp. 68 , 77—78.
36. Gagne and Briggs , Principles, pp. 82-84.
37. Ibid., pp. 83—89.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid. , pp. 83—84 .
40. Ibid. , pp. 84—87.
4 1 . I b i d . , p. 85.
4 2 . I b i d . , p. 85.
43. I b i d . , pp. 86—87.
44. Ibid. , p. 87 .
45. Ibid., pp. 84—87.

57

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 5 — - -- _
— - - --5 -5 --
 —-5 -_ -5,— -5—-- - —T_

46. Bassett and Kibler , p. 72.

47. Gagne and Briggs , Principles , p. 97.

48. Bassett and Kibler , “Writing, ” p. 72.
49. Ibid., pp. 73—74.
CHAPTER II I

1. Joseph P. Byers, et al., “Behavioral Objectives and

Communication s I n s t r u c t i o n : State of the Research , ” Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Comrnunica-
tion Association , Portland , Oregon : April 13— 17 , 1976 , p. 8.
2. Ibid., pp. 1-13; James Hartley and Ivor K. Davies,
“Preinstructional Strategies: The Role of Pretests , Behavioral
Objectives, Overviews , and Advance Organizers ,” Review of the
Educational Research, Spring 1976 , V. 46 , No. 2, pp. 239-259;
Leslie 3. Briggs , ed., Instructional Design, Principles and
Applica tions (Englewood ~~ 1 iff s , Educational Technology , 1977),
pp. 80— 87.

3. ayers , et al., “Behavioral ,” pp. 6-8.

4. Ibid., pp. 8, 13.
5~. Ibid., pp. 6—7.
6. Ibid., p. 7.

7. Robert 3. Kobler and Ronald E. Bassett , “Writing ,

Performance Objectives ,” in Leslie J. Brigga , ed., Ins truc-
tional Design, Principles and Applications (Englewoc d Cliffs:
Educational Technology , 1977), pp. 82-83.
8. ayers, et a l . , p. 7.
9. Ibid., pp. 7—8.

• 10. Kibler and Bassett , p. 86.

11. Byers, et al., p. 8.

12. Ibid.
13. Kibler and Bassett , pp. 86—87.
14. Byers , et al., p. 8.
15. Ibid., p. 8.

58
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -5 ------ - _ _

16. Kibler and Bassett , pp. 83-84.

17. James Hartley and Ivor K. Davies , “Preinstructional
Strategies: The Role of Pretests , Behavioral Objectives ,
Overviews , and Advanced Organizers ,” Review of the Educational
Research, Spring 1976 , V. 46 , No. 2 , p. 249.

18.

19. Hartley and Davies , pp. 250-251.

20. Ibid., pp. 251— 259.

21. Reginald F. Milton , “Resolution of Conflicting

Claims Concerning Behavioral Objectives ,” Paper presented
at the American Education Research Association Conference ,
New York , 1977 , p. 1.
22. Ibid .
23. Ibid., p. 2.
24. I b i d . , p. 3.

25. R.S. Engel as cited in Reginald F. Milton , “Resolu-

tion of Conflicting Claims Concerning Behavioral Objectives ,”
Paper presented at the American Education Research Association
Conference , New York , 1977 , p. 3.
26. Milton , p. 5.
27. J.A. Mores and M.H. Tillman as cited in Reginald
F. Milton , “Resolution of Conflicting Claims Concerning Be-
havioral Objectives ,” Paper pre sented at the American
Educational Research Association Conference , New York , 1977 ,
pp. 5-6.
2 8. P . C . Duchastel as cited in Reginald F. Milton ,
“Resolution of Conflicting Claims Concerning Behavioral
Objectives ,” paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association Conference , New York , 1977 , p. 6.
29. E.Z. Rothkopf and R. Kaplan as cited in Reginald
F. Milton , “Resolution of Conflicting Claims Concerning
Behavioral Objectives ,” Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Conference , New York , 1977 ,
pp. 6-7.
30. Milton , p. 8.

59

- - - -- --5- - - — -- -5- - - - - - - - - -5 — -- - - - - - - ---~~~~~~~~~~~~ --

- - - --
-
 --

31. I~ id.
32. Byers , pp. 1-13; Hartley and Davies , pp. 239—259;
Briggs , ed., pp. 80— 87.
CHAPTER IV

1. Interview with Major Frank A. Tantello , Instructional

Technologist , Deputy Director of Curriculum , Air Command
and Staff College , Air University , Maxwell Air Force Base ,
Alabama : 14 April 1978.
2. U . S . Air Force , Ai r U n i v e r s i t y Catalog, Air University ,
Maxwell Air Force Base , Alabama : 1977-78 , p. 14.
3. Inte rview with Tantello, Ma xwell AFB .
4. “Air University Catalog ,” pp. 14, 17.
5. Leslie J. Briggs , ed., Instructional Design, Principles
and Applications (Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology ,
1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 103—109.

6. “Air Un iver sity Catalog , ” p. 18.

7. Interview with Tantello , Maxwell AFB .

8. “Air U n i v e r s i ty Catalog , ” p. 18.
9. U.S . Air Force , Readings and Seminars, Command and
Management ,” Volume 3 , Air Command and Staff College , Air
University, Maxwell Air Force Base , Alabama , 1977 , p. 39.
10. Interview with Tantello , Maxwell AFB .
11. Interview with LTC James B. Channon , Instructional
Technolog ist , O f f i c e of Curriculum Analysis and Design , U.S .
Army Command and General Staff College , Fort Leavenworth ,
Kansas: 11 April 1978.
12. U.S. Army , Command and General Staff College Catelog,
Command and General Staff College , Fort Leavenworth , Kansas:
1977—78 , p. iii.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., p. v—2.
15. Interview with Channon , Fort Leavenworth .

60

_____________________________
 -5
- 5- 5— -5
~~1

16. U.S. Army , Draft , “Management and Force Development ,”

Advance Sheet , P212-i ,” Command and General Staff College ,
Fort Leavenworth , Kansas: April 1978 , p. Ll-l.
17. Briggs , pp. 101-110.

18. D r a f t , “Command and Force Development Advance Sheet ,

P212—i ,” Command and Cenerai Staff College , Fort Leavenworth ,
Kansas: April 1978 , pp. Ll-18 , Ll—20.
CHA P TER V

1. Robert F. Mager , Preparj fl9 I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s

(Palo Alto . Fearon , 1 9 6 2) , p . 10 .

2. Robert M. Gagne and L e s l i e J. Br i g g s , P r i n c i p l e s

of I n s t r u c t i o n a l Design (New York : Holt , R i n e h a r t and
Winston , 1974), pp. 84— 87.
3. James Hartley and Ivor K. Dav ies , “Pre ins truc t ional
Strategies: The Role of Pretests , Behavioral Objectives ,
Overviews , and Advance Organizers ,” Review of Educational
Research, Spring 1976 , V. 46 , No. 2 , p. 243.
4. Ibid.

5. Gagne and Bri ggs , P r i n c i p l e s, pp. 101-109.

6. Norman E . Gronlund , S t a t i n g O b j e c t i v e s for Classroom

Instruction (New York : Macmillan , 1978), p. iii .
7. Joseph P. Byers , et a l . , “ B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s
and Communications Instruction : State of the Research ,”
Ppaer presented at the Annual Meeting of the International
Communication Association , Portland , Oregon : April 13-17 ,
1976, pp. 2, 8.

61
 - 5— - ------ - - --------
- —- ----5-5--—— - - - - 5 - - 5 —--- -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arstin , D.S. “The Language and Values of Programmed

Instruction , Part II.” The Educational Forum , 1964 ,
pp. 337—346.
Bassett , R.E . and Kibler , R.J . “Effects of Training in
Use of Behavioral Objectives on Student Achievement .”
Journal of Experimental Education, 1975 , pp. 12— 16.
Bloom , B . S . , et a l . Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
The Clar i f i c a t i o n of Educational Goals. Handbook I:
Cognit ive Domain. New York : David McKay, 1956.

Briggs , Leslie 3. An Overview of Instructional Systems

Design. Tallahassee : Florida State University , 1975.
ed. Instructional Design, Principles and
Applications. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Tech-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

nology , 1977.
Byers , J.P., Bassett , R.E., and Kibler , R .J. “Behavioral
Objectives and Communications Instruction : State of
the Research. ” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the International Communication Association , Portland ,
Oregon , April 13—17 , 1976.
Duchastel , P.C. and Merrill , P.F. “The Effects of Behavioral
Objectives on Learning : A Review of Empirical Studies. ”
Review of Educational Research, 1973 , pp. 43 , 53-70.
Duell , O.K . “Effect of Type of Objective Level on Test
Questions, and the Judged Importance of Tested Materials
Upon Posttest Performance .” Journal of Educational
Psyç~1o1~ 9~ , 1974 , pp. 225—232.

Gagne , Robert M. The Conditions of L e ar n i ~~j 3rd ed. New

York : Holt , Rinehart , and Winston , 1977.

. and B r i g gs , Leslie J. P r i n c i p l e s of I n s t r u c t i o n a l
Design. New York : Holt , Rinehart , and Winston , 1974.
— _ _ _ _ _ _

Gronlund , Norman E. Stating Objectives for Classroom In—

struction. New York : M a c m i l l a n , 1978.

Hartley, James and Davies , Ivor K. “Preinstructional Strategies:

The Role of P r e t e s t s , Behavioral O b j e c t i v e s , Overviews ,
and Advance Organizers. ” Review of Educational Research,
Spring 1976 , Vol. 46, No. 2 , pp. 239—265.

62

---5 -5-5 _ •_ — _ -—-5 - - — -5

~~~~~~~~~~ --—-—- — ---5- - , - ~~-
 -5- 5 - 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interview with Cpt . Robert T. Begland , Ph.D. (c), Center for

Educational Technology, Florida State University, Talla-
hassee , Fla. : 12-13 April 1978.

Interview with LTC Jame s B. Channon , Instructional Tech-

nologist , O f f i c e of C u r r i c u l u m Analys i s and Desi g n ,
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College , Fort
Leavenworth , Kansas: 11 April 1978.
Interview with Major Frank A. Tantello , Instructional
Technologist , Deputy Director of Curriculum , Air Com-
mand and Sta f f College , Air U n i v e r s i t y , Maxwell A i r
Force Base , Alabama : 14 A p r i l 1978.

Kaufman , Roger A. Needs Assessment: What It Is and How

to Do It. San Diego : University Consortium on In-
structional Development and Technology , 1976.
E d u c a t i o n a l System P l a n n i n g. Englewood C l i f f s :
Prentice-Hall , 1972.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Kibler , Robert J., et al . Instructional Objectives and

Evaluation. Boston : Allyn and Bacon , 1974.
L i n d v a ll , C . M . , ed. D e f i n i n g E d u c a t i o n a l O b j e c ti v e s .
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh , 196 ~i .
Macdonald-Ross , M. “Behav ioral Objectives - A Critical
Rev iew. ” Instructional Science, 1973 , pp. 1 — 5 2 .
Mager , Robert. Developing Attitude Toward Learnin9.
Belmont , CA: Fearon , 1978.
Analyzing Performance Problems. Belmont , CA:
Fearon , 1976.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Preparing Instruct ional Ob p c t iv ,~ s. P a lo A l t o :

Fearon , 1962.
_ _ _ _

Milton , Reginald F. “Resolution of Conflicting Claims Con-

cerning Behavioral Objectives. ” Paper presented at the
American Educa t ional Research Assoc ia ti on Confer en ce ,
New York , 1977.
Min e , L.M. and Raburn , M.D. “Accountability in Instruc-
tion : The Efficiency of Instructional Objectives in
a Mastery Learning System .” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the International Communication
Association , Portland , Oregon , April 13—17 , 1976.
Popham , W.J. and Baker , E.L. Establishing Instructional
Goals. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall , 1970.

63

- - - — -~~~~~~ — - -5 - ——
-
r - --5 -

~~~~~~
-5 1
~

Ra ths , J. “Teaching Without Specific Objectives ,” Educa-

tional Leadership, 1971 , pp. 714—720 .
Rothkopf , E.Z. “The Concept of Mathemagenic Activities. ”
Rev iew of Educational Process, 1970 , pp. 325—33 6.

and Kaplan , R. “Instructional Objectives and

Directions to Learners: Effect of Passage Length and
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Amount of Objective-Relevant Content. ” Journal of

Educational Psychology, 1972 , pp. 295-302.

“Exploration of the Effect of Denisty and

Spec ificity of Instructional Objectives on Learning
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

From Text. ” Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974 ,

pp. p 8— 456 .

U .S. Air Force . Air University Catalog . Air University ,

Ma x w e l l A ir Force Ba se , Alabama : 1977— 78.

R e a d i n g s and Seminars , Command and Management .

V. 3. A i r Command and Staff College , A i r U n i v e r s i ty ,
—_ _ _ _

Maxwell Air Force Base , Alabama : 1977.

!
).S. Army . Co:n iau d and ner ~i l _ ~~t i i f College Cata.
~~~~
Command and ( ~cneral Staff College , Fort Leavenworth ,
Kansas: 1977—78 .

Management and Force Development , A dvance

— - . ‘Draft ,
Sheet , P212—i . ” Command and General Staff Col lege ,
1-~~rt Leavenworth , Kansas: Apri i l~~78.

64