The effectiveness of using instructional objectives with less able secondary school pupils

This study examines the effects of providing less able lower secondary geography pupils with written instructional objectives prior to instruction. Since 1983, teachers in Singapore schools have been writing instructional objectives to guide themselves in their teaching. This study goes one step further to try to answer the question To utilise fully the instructional objectives which teachers have written, can they make use of them to help pupils improve their learning? This study specifically addresses the Normal stream pupils who are academically less able and who require the most guidance and assistance. The results indicated that (i) the use of instructional objectives as an instructional strategy does seem to enhance learning for less able secondary school pupils, (ii) when presented with instructional objectives as an aid to learning, boys appear to benefit more than girls. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of giving students instructional objectives to assist them in learning. Results have been conflicting due to the many different conditions under which studies have been undertaken. However a recent meta-analysis carried out by Ascencio (1984) statistically supported the use of instructional objectives. When students were grouped by ability, the findings were more favourable.

In six studies which related effectiveness of the use of instructional objectives to learning, three studies (Smith, 1967; Bryant, 1970; Stalians, 1978) revealed no significant results of the effectiveness of instructional objectives on lower ability students, while three other studies (Doty, 1968; Wingard, 1976; Hunter 1987) showed that over ability students have benefited most from the use of instructional objectives.

A substantial number of empirical studies lend support to the claim that providing students with instructional objectives enhances relevant learning. A number of studies, on the other hand, have recorded experiments in which the availability of instructional objectives did not help relevant learning. However, in none of these instances was relevant learning depressed (Melton, 1978). It is clear then, that instructional objectives can enhance learning under certain conditions.

Methodology

The experimental design used for this study was the pretest-posttest control group design (Campbell and Stanley, 1963):

Experimental (Pupils provided with objectives) Control (Pupils not provided with objectives)	R R	01 03	X	02 04

The experiment was based on three topics on the geography of Singapore in the Secondary One Normal-course geography syllabus. The three topics were: The Central Business District, Urban Renewal and the Industrial Landscape. The following steps were taken in carrying out the experiment:

1. A week prior to the experiment, the researcher met separately with the three teachers from the three schools who would be teaching an experimental and a control class each.

2. Before proceeding with the actual experiment, the objective-referenced measure which consisted of fifty multiple-choice items and which served as the pretest as well as the posttest, was administered to all the six classes to establish their entry behaviour for the topics to be taught.

3. In the experimental classes, before instruction began, the teachers provided each pupil with a list of instructional objectives for the particular topic to be taught. The teachers read aloud the objectives relevant to the lesson at the start of the lesson, after which they proceeded with the lesson. The pupils were told to have in hand the list of objectives pertaining to the topic they were studying during lesson time. This was to help guide them during instruction. they were at the same time informed that the objectives would help them study for the test at the end of the three topics.

4. In the control classes, the same teachers taught as similar lessons as possible to the experimental classes except that no instructional objectives were given to the pupils. The control pupils were also aware that they would be tested at the end of the three topics.

5. The experiment was carried out over a period of four and a half weeks. Nine lessons on the three topics were studied as usually Secondary One pupils study two periods of geography each week.

6. After four and a half weeks of experimentation, the objective-referenced measure which served as the pretest was administered as the posttest to determine the effects of the treatment.

7. Classroom observation was carried out at random by the researcher during the period of experimentation to monitor the adherence to procedures in both the experimental and control classes.

Analysis of data

Results

A secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a significant difference in the performance of boys and girls provided with objectives as revealed in the posttest scores. The results indicated that boys provided with instructional objectives achieved significantly higher scores than girls.

The main hypothesis for the study was:

There will be no significant difference in scores on the objective-referenced posttest between pupils who have been given knowledge of instructional objectives prior to instruction and pupils who do not have prior knowledge of such objectives.

	N	Pretest Mean	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Treatment (with objectives)	120	12.95	32.85	6.95	32.77
Control (without objectives)	120	13.49	29.10	6.16	28.98

Source of Variation	DF	SS	MS	F Value	P Value
Treatment (Between groups)	1	860.68	860.68	24.07	0.0001
Error (Within Groups)	237	8476.09	35.76
Total	239	11338.25

The F statistic of 24.07 shows that a significant difference of beyond the >.05 level existed in the posttest scores between the treatment and the control groups. Therefore the main hypothesis may be confidently rejected. Pupils who have been given knowledge of instructional objectives prior to instruction out-performed those without such prior knowledge on the objective-referenced posttest. A secondary hypothesis of the study was:

There will be no significant difference in scores on the objective-referenced posttest between boys and girls who have been given knowledge of instructional objectives prior to instruction.

		N	Pretest Mean	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Treatment	Boys Girls	53 67	14.06 12.45	34.49 31.21	6.52 7.38	34.20 31.64
Control	Boys Girls	54 66	14.33 12.79	29.28 28.94	6.47 5.85	28.83 29.11

Source of variation	DF	SS	MS	F value	P value
Sex (Between Groups)	1	197.58	197.58	4.6	0.0340
Error (Within Groups)	117	5021.18	42.92

The F value of 4.6 reveals that presented with objectives as aids to learning, boys performed significantly better than girls at the .05 level. This secondary null hypothesis therefore has to be rejected.

Discussion

1. The high significant difference between treatment and control groups.
2. The lowest ability group.

An interesting aspect concerning the performance of the groups was revealed, namely, the treatment class of Group Y, which had the lowest T-score at the Primary School Leaving Examination amongst all the six classes in the study, achieved the highest man score on the posttest (Table 5).

	N	Pre Mean	Mean	MS	Adj Mean
Treatment Group
X	40	14.93	27.85	7.67	27.00
Y	40	6.08	32.95	6.03	36.60
Z	40	17.83	37.18	4.13	34.80
Control Group
X	40	15.22	30.58	5.17	29.60
Y	40	7.05	25.85	6.29	29.00
Z	40	18.18	30.85	5.62	28.32
	F (ANCOVA)	P value
X	4.04	0.0481
Y	33.06	0.0001
Z	48.99	0.0001
Note: Group X p<.05 favouring the control instead of the treatment class.

By inference it may possible be that the pupils of the lowest ability benefited most from the provision of instructional objectives as an aid to learning the topics. though this finding does not confirm the view put forth by Hartley and Davies (1976) who suggested that mainly middle ability students benefit from the use of instructional objectives, empirical evidence does exist to counter this claim and to support this finding. Studies by Doth (1968), Wingard (1976) and Hunter (1982) similarly reported that lower ability students, when provided with instructional objectives, performed significantly better on the posttest with scores surpassing the middle ability groups in one case (Doty, 1968).

Conclusion and implications

Some opponents however, argue that instructional objectives confine students' learning to specified objectives. Such outcomes are possible using objectives; they are just as possible without objectives. this study was interested only in the less able Normal-Course pupils, and for such pupils it can be argued that the task of learning will be made that much easier if what is to be learnt is pointed out to them rather than leave them to sort out and sieve for themselves what is relevant and necessary for evaluation - a process which they, being less capable, may not be able to handle. This study has churned up a point of significance - that the weakest pupils seemed to have benefited most from the instructional objectives. These less able pupils may have regarded the objectives provided to them as the guidance which could help them perform better in an assessment.

From the results obtained in this study, a question we might consider could be: It is really worth the extra effort needed to write instructional objectives for pupils and apply them? To answer this question is has to be borne in mind that this study is the only one on this nature in the educational milieu in Singapore. It is not incorrect to say that achievement of knowledge is a central goal of geography classes and this study has shown that achievement of knowledge can be improved through the use of instructional objectives. The issue however need not be just a matter of finding a simple, universal answer as to whether instructional objectives could be treated as one of several tools available to teachers. Keeping in view Melton's (1978) comments that "it is clear that a variety of complex conditions determine whether or not behavioural objectives enhance relevant learning..." individual teachers or schools would them be responsible for determining whether providing pupils with specific instructional objectives is worth the extra effort as this would depend on whether or not the objectives are likely to be useful in their own particular situation. Empirical research however has shown that objectives sometimes help but are almost never harmful (Duchastel and Merrill, 1973)

References

Bryant, N. Jr. (1970). The effects of performance objectives on the achievement of selected eighth grade science pupils in four predominantly black inner city schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 457.

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Doty, C. R. (1968). The effect of practice and prior knowledge of educational objective on performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts International, 29, 3035A.

Duchastel, P. C. and Merrill, P. F. (1973). The effects of behavioural objectives on learning: A review of empirical studies. Review of Educational Research, 43, 53-69.

Hartley, J. and Davies, I. K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioural objectives, overviews and advance organisers. Review of Educational Research, 46, 239-265.

Hunter, W. G. (1982). The effect of student knowledge of written instructional objectives on the teaching-learning process in selected eleventh grade American history classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.

Khoynejad, G. (1980). The effects of behavioural objectives, pre-questions, and a combination of both on intentional and incidental learning from written text by secondary school students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1980.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2913A.

Lapolla, L. L. Jr. (1983). The effects of instructional objectives on achievement of knowledge of seventh grade social studies classes. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1983.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2744A.

Melton, R. F. (1978). Resolution of conflicting claims concerning the effect of behavioural objectives of student learning. Review of Educational Research, 48, 291-302.

Smith, S. A. (1967). The effects of two variables on the achievement of slow learners on a unit in mathematics. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.

Stalians, K. L. (1978). The effects of advance organisers and behavioural objectives by reading level using an individualised remediation program on achievement of inner-city high school students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 2889A.

Wingard, H. E. (1976). The effects of presenting and discussing stated behavioural objectives on learning in a ninth grade unit on sex education, (Doctoral Dissertation, South Illinois University, 1976.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 5621A.

Please cite as: Teo Boon Guat and Teh, G. P. L. (1987). The effectiveness of using instructional objectives with less able secondary school pupils. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 135-144. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet3/teo.html