The Effects of Behavioral Objectives on Learning: A Review of Empirical Studies

Abstract

In a review of over 25 empirical investigations of effects of communicating behavioral objectives to students, several trends were apparent. Advance knowledge of behavioral objectives led to improved posttest performance in five of ten studies and to improved retention in two of three instances. Only two of seven studies found an interaction between knowledge of objectives and type of learning: in one case knowledge acquisition but not comprehension was facilitated, while in the other knowledge of objectives interfered on a problem-solving task, but not on a discrimination task. A third group of studies reported interactions between availability of objectives and reasoning ability, personality characteristics, and state anxiety. Finally, when coupled with complete learner control of the course, knowledge of objectives decreased learning time.

Do specific relevance instructions promote transfer appropriate processing?

“…relevant information and affect how they devote resources towards processing and learning that information (see Duchastel andMerrill 1973 andFaw andWaller 1976 for earlier reviews; see McCrudden and Schraw 2007 for a more recent review). However, there is limited research investigating how specific relevance instructions, in the form of prereading questions, affect readers' moment-by-moment processing of text and cued recall of text information.…”

Behavioral objectives, sequence, and anxiety in CAI

“…The outcome of these investigations, reviewed in detail elsewhere (Duchastel and Merrill, 1973), has been inconclusive. There are approximately as many studies reporting an achievement advantage for making objectives available to the student, as there have been studies finding no significant differences attributable to objectives.…”

“…In the review by Duchastel and Merrill (1973), ten studies used materials which were programmed in the sense of being presented as a programmed instructional course, a CAI course, or a course presented in an individualized instructional context. Of these, eight studies (Smith, 1967;Oswald and Fletcher, 1970;Stedman, 1970;Merrill and Towle, 1971a, b;Conlon, 1970;Etter, 1969;Smith, 1970) found no difference between providing the student with objectives and not doing so.…”

“…Of these, one study found a significant difference in favor of objectives, the other did not. The remaining studies reviewed by Duchastel and Merrill (1973) used either lecture, a film presentation, or textbook materials. Half of these found differences in favor of the objectives group, the other half did not.…”

Why do learning goals (not) work: a reexamination of the hypothesized effectiveness of learning goals based on students’ behaviour and cognitive processes

“…Substantial research evidence suggests that providing students with learning goals (i.e., instructional/learning objectives) is useful in helping them to generate specific reading goals and strategies for reading, attention allocation, and learn more from a text (Kaplan and Rothkopf 1974;Lehman and Schraw 2002;McCrudden and Schraw 2007;McCrudden et al 2005;Salmerón et al 2010;Rothkopf and Billington 1975;Wilson and Sperber 2004;Zwaan and Singer 2003). However, the facilitating effects of learning goals were rather inconclusive (e.g., Duchastel and Merrill 1973;Reynolds et al 1993). In accounting for the inconsistent findings, various variables were considered (e.g., students' characteristics, such as verbal ability: McCrudden and Schraw 2010; and the characteristics of learning objectives, such as density and specificity: Rothkopf and Kaplan 1972).…”