THE EFFECTS OF BEHAVIORAL

OBJECTIVES ON LEARNING:
A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES1
Philippe C. Duchastel and Paul F. Merrill
Florida State University

The concept of the clearly stated and

specific instructional objective is not a new one to the academic
community. Curriculum specialists were already advocating the need
for specificity of objectives some 30 years ago (Popham, 1969a).
However, with the appearance of Mager's (1962) classic little book, the
educational community has had to come to grips with both the
feasibility of using behavioral objectives and the value of such
objectives to teaching and learning. Individual educators as well as
organizations from the school level to the state level have taken sides on
the issue, and one has only to glance through the more teacher-oriented
journals to find a constant flow of articles dealing with the topic of
behavioral objectives. While most of the authors are strong proponents
of the behavioral objective movement, a small group of educators has
resisted this surge and put to question the value of behavioral objectives
(Atkin, 1969; Eisner, 1967; Ebel, 1970).
A few investigators have turned to research in an attempt to base
perceptions of the issue on empirical grounds rather than on purely
logical/rhetorical grounds. As Eisner (1967) has pointed out, whether
or not behavioral objectives are of value or not in curriculum
construction, teaching, and learning is really an empirical question.
Role of Behavioral Objectives
Various rationales can be expressed for specifying behavioral
objectives in education, and numerous authors have advanced such
rationales (Popham, 1969b; Lindvall, 1964). However, for the purpose
of clarity, it seems appropriate to view behavioral objectives as serving
three main instructional functions: (a) direction for teaching and
curriculum development; (b) guidance in evaluation; and (c) facilitation
of learning.
As for a means for improving teaching, some research evidence has
come to our attention with regard to the use of behavioral objectives. A
few studies (McNeil, 1967; Baker, 1969; Jenkins & Deno, 1971; Piatt,
1969; Bryant, 1970; Schneiderwent, 1970) have been reported but are
not reviewed here. Empirical research in this area would seem to be
open to greater difficulties than it would in the area of learning.
1
This paper was supported by the Office of Naval Research under Contract
N00014-68-A-0494.

53
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 43, No. 1

However, greater practical benefits perhaps may also be derived from

this approach.
As providing guidance for evaluation, behavioral objectives seem
implicitly valuable (Briggs, 1970). Although criterion-referenced evaluation may not be amenable to classical statistical techniques (Popham &
Husek, 1969), this should be a minimal factor determining its
usefulness. Two studies (Briggs, Stoker, & Scanlon, 1971; Griffin,
1971) were reported in the area of evaluation, but will not be reviewed
in this paper.
The third function of behavioral objectives, i.e., as an aid to
learning, is the focus of the review. The issue, in general terms, can be
stated as follows: Does communicating behavioral objectives to
students have a facilitative effect on their learning? As will be seen, no
simple answer can be provided. A number of studies have shown
facilitative effects. However, an equal number of studies have failed to
demonstrate any significant differences. An attempt will be made,
therefore, to consider the contributing factors which result in this
situation.
We shall first consider the general nature of the variables involved
in the studies comprising this review. Then will follow detailed
presentation of the investigations themselves. We have included as much
detail as is practical so that the reader may distinguish among results
according to the variables of interest.
Behavioral Objectives and Learning
The first variable to consider is the specificity of the objectives.
Many of the studies reviewed simply make a distinction between
providing no objectives and providing behavioral objectives. Others go
further and differentiate between behavioral objectives, general objectives, and no objectives. Still others are not as precise and simply
refer to instructional objectives or educational objectives. Some studies
give an indication of the criteria by which they define the objectives
employed or even give examples of their objectives, while others give
no such indication. Since the nature of objectives may vary over many
dimensions, the lack of operational definitions of the objectives variable
makes it very difficult to generalize across studies.
The second variable of importance which has been investigated in
various studies is the type of learning involved in the learning task. The
following two categories were used most frequently: (a) knowledge,
usually considered as the learning of factual information; and (b)
comprehension, mainly considered as the learning of concepts and
principles. Here again, operational definitions of the variable were often
lacking.
A third group of variables investigated consisted of student
characteristics. A number of researchers have looked at student ability,
sometimes categorized simply as high, medium, or low ability. Other
factors such as sex, personality, and socioeconomic status were also
investigated.
54

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

DUCHASTEL & MERRILL

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING

While dependent measures were numerous, the usual ones employed were learning (as measured on an immediate posttest), and
retention (often a test administered one to several weeks later). Other
dependent variables investigated included the time necessary for the
subject to reach mastery of the task and student attitude.
Review of Studies
The studies reviewed in this paper have been grouped into four
categories. The first category comprises those investigations which
address the general issue of the effect of objectives on learning. The
studies in the second category further investigated these effects
according to the type of learning involved. The third category deals
with studies involving learner characteristics. And finally, because of
their special nature, those studies utilizing time to criterion as their
major dependent variable were grouped in the fourth category.
General
This first category involves those studies which have merely
investigated the hypothesis that students provided with behavioral
objectives would achieve more than students not provided with
objectives. There are ten studies included within this category.
Doty (1968) investigated the effect of prior knowledge of
objectives along with the effect of practice on performance in a short
written text on reading and calculating the value and tolerance of
carbon axial resistors. The treatments were given to 190 seventh grade
students sampled from seven public schools. The results showed that Ss
who received objectives scored significantly higher on a posttest
measure of performance. No interaction with practice was found.
Blaney and McKie (1969) investigated the effects of providing
behavioral objectives to a group of conference attendees. The two-day
conference for adult educators dealt with new management techniques
in education. Sixty volunteers were divided into three groups:
a behavioral objective group, a general introduction group, and a
pretest group. Each of these pre-conference treatments was administered just prior to the beginning of the conference program.
A significant difference between the objectives and the introduction
group on the immediate posttest was found, but there were no
significant differences between the objectives group and the pretest
group, nor between the introduction group and the pretest group.
The effects of providing behavioral objectives to students in a
college economics course during a four-week treatment period were
investigated by Tiemann (1968). The instructional task consisted of
eight videotape lectures and a weekly seminar. The Ss received either
general objectives or specific objectives subsumed under the appropriate
general objectives. It should be noted, however, that most of the
behavioral objectives were very close to summary statements of the
form: "Recognize that. . . . (rule); Indicate that. . . . (rule)." The gen55
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 43, No. 1

eral objectives, on the other hand, were similar to the following:

"Understand the relationship between. . . . No significant effects were
found for type of objective using mid-term exam scores as criterion.
However, significant effects were found using retention test scores as
criterion, with the behavioral objectives group scoring higher
than the general objectives group. More favorable attitude, as measured
by a course evaluation questionnaire, was also associated with the
provision of behavioral objectives. The lack of student questions
referenced to the objectives during the seminar periods prior to the
mid-term exam lead the investigator to conclude that the importance of
the objectives was grasped by the students only after the mid-term
examination, which was directly referenced to the objectives.
Dalis (1970) investigated the effect of the specificity of objectives
on achievement in a three-week unit on growth and development. The
Ss were 133 tenth grade students from five health and safety classes
taught by the same teacher. The Ss received one of three treatments:
(a) precisely stated instructional objectives; (b) vaguely stated objectives; or (c) short paragraphs of health information. The vague
objectives were similar to the precise objectives except that both the
content and behavioral dimensions were general. Achievement on a
68-item criterion test indicated that the precisely stated objective group
performed significantly better than the other two groups, which in turn
did not differ significantly from one another. No significant differences
between groups were found using the amount of time spent outside of
class each day as criterion.
Boardman (1970) investigated the use of behavioral objectives in
remedial chemistry. Two factors were investigated within four groups
of students: advanced knowledge of behavioral objectives and attendance to a lecture/laboratory session. No significant differences on
achievement were observed between groups. In another study, Bishop
(1969) investigated the effect of objectives in a ninth grade vocational
agriculture course. No significant differences were found between the
behavioral objective group (n=44) and the no-objective group (n=44) on
either immediate posttest scores or retention test scores obtained after
a thirty day interval. The effects on performance of a factual
information organizer, a list of behavioral objectives, and a pretest in a
unit on nursing care was investigated by Lawrence (1970). Her
objectives, however, were more a presentation of rules than of
behavioral objectives. Performance of the 216 Ss was measured by a
fifty-item posttest which also served as the pretest. The results
indicated that the behavioral objective treatment was significantly
superior to the other treatments.
Weinberg (1970) studied the effect of behavioral objectives on
bowling knowledge and skill. Students enrolled in four classes received
either no objectives, general objectives, behaviorally stated objectives
describing terminal behaviors only, or behaviorally stated objectives
describing both intermediate steps and terminal behaviors. The tests
developed to measure learning during the ten-week instructional period
56
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

DUCHASTEL & MERRILL

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING

covered ability to bowl, form, knowledge of game strategy, rules,

scoring, and the mechanics of bowling. No significant differences were
obtained between treatment groups on these tests.
Smith (1967) investigated the effect of providing 162 slow
learners from ten 8th-grade classes with behavioral objectives on a
semi-programmed unit in elementary probability. Half of the Ss in each
of the ten classes were assigned to a behavioral objective treatment
while the other half were assigned to a no-objective treatment. The
results failed to reveal any significant differences between the treatments on an objective referenced posttest.
A study by Engel (1968) sought to determine the effect of
behavioral objectives on achievement in a partially programmed unit of
instruction in mathematics. The twelve lessons included in the unit
were administered during eight consecutive class days to 48 elementary
education majors. One-half of the Ss received a cover sheet stating the
objectives of the unit. The results revealed significant differences
between the objective and no-objective groups on posttest and
three-week interval retention test scores in favor of the behavioral
objectives group.
This first group of studies is difficult to summarize because of the
lack of consistent results across investigations. On immediate retention,
measured by a posttest, five studies reported a significant effect due to
the availability of behavioral objectives, while five studies reported no
such effect. On measures of delayed retention, two investigations found
objectives to enhance performance and one did not find this facultative
effect. In summary, the availability of objectives was found to facilitate
learning in certain instances, although the generalizability of these
instances is not easily determined.
Type of Learning
The studies included in this second group have sought interactions
between type of learning and availability of objectives. Most of these
studies have categorized learning as knowledge or comprehension where
knowledge is understood to be the learning of facts and comprehension
to be the learning of principles. Precise definitions, however, are often
lacking. There are seven studies reviewed in this category.
Oswald and Fletcher (1970) studied the effects of varying levels of
specificity of objectives which dealt with either knowledge or comprehension outcomes. The 619 eleventh-grade social science students
were randomly assigned to one of five groups: four groups received
either specific objectives or general objectives which were in turn either
knowledge objectives or comprehension objectives; the fifth group
received a placebo statement which was considered a non-objective. The
specific objectives were reported to have met the criteria of Mager
(1962), and the general objectives, the criteria of Tyler (1950). After
25 minutes of reading time, the students were requested to take a
40-item posttest, which measured knowledge and comprehension. One
57

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 43, No. 1

week later, the same test was readministered as a retention test. No

significant differences were found between any of the groups on either
the posttest or the retention test.
Jenkins and Deno (1971) investigated the effects of knowledge of
objectives on the part of the teacher and on the part of the learner in an
instructional unit on social science methodology developed by Baker
(1969). The objectives were either general or behavioral, and were given
to either teachers only, teachers and students, or students only. As the
authors point out, however, the last treatment was confounded with
the manner in which the content was presented. No significant main
effects nor interaction effects were found.
The effects of types, location, and distribution of orienting
instructions were investigated by Papay (1971). The orienting instructions included behavioral objectives, questions, and advanced organizers
which were either presented before or after the textual material and
either massed or distributed. The instructional unit was a 3500-word
passage dealing with the endocrinology of pubescence which was
developed by Ausubel and Fitzgerald (1962). Two hundred and
twenty-nine introductory psychology students were assigned to 12
treatment and four control groups. A pretest and one-week interval
retention test consisting of 28 multiple-choice factual and comprehension items were administered to all Ss. The results showed that although
behavioral objectives were effective at prelocation for learning of
factual information, they generally were the least effective of the three
orienting instructions.
Olson (1971) investigated the effect of providing behavioral
objectives to college students on four units of textual materials on
interior design. Fifty Ss received behaviorally stated objectives, whereas
51 Ss received no objectives. While 15 behavioral objectives were
developed for each unit, only ten were given to the Ss in the behavioral
objective groups. Dependent measures consisted of unit quizzes and a
final test administered five days following the last unit and again after a
two week interval. The final test consisted of items to measure the
presented objectives, the non-presented objectives, and generalizations
of principles or concepts. The results failed to support the hypothesized
facultative effect due to behavioral objectives.
The effects of objectives, instructions, and a precriterion test on
the learning of a complex cognitive task were investigated by Yelon and
Schmidt (1971). The instructional task was to master a puzzle called
"think-a-dot" in which the subject was required to predict the changes
that would occur in a pattern of dots which was altered in a mechanical
toy when a marble was set in motion. Seventy-two graduate students
were divided into four treatment groups: a no-instruction group, a
behavioral objective group, an instruction group, and a behavioral
objective instruction group. Half of the Ss in each group were further
administered a precriterion test at the middle of the session, which was
a shortened but parallel form of the posttest. The posttest consisted of
pattern prediction and pattern production subtests. Results indicated
58

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

DUCHASTEL & MERRILL

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING

that the groups with objectives, while not performing better on the
pattern prediction subtests, performed significantly worse than the
groups without objectives on the pattern production subtests.
Stedman (1970) investigated the effects of behavioral objectives
across levels of knowledge, comprehension, application, and analysis in
a 93-frame programmed unit on genetics. The 144 high school students
were assigned to the following four treatment groups: a no-objective
group, a general objective group, and two behavioral objective groups.
Performance on a 28-item posttest comprised of seven items in each of
the categories of knowledge, comprehension, application, and analysis
was not significantly influenced by the presence or type of objectives.
No significant interactions between type of learning and type of
objectives were obtained.
The effects of disclosure of cognitive and affective educational
objectives on learning were investigated by Brown (1970). The learning
task consisted of a series of political role playing games. Seven criterion
variables were employed to assess cognitive and affective outcomes. The
three cognitive outcomes were knowledge of facts and principles,
problem solving in situations similar to those presented in the games,
and problem solving in novel situations. No significant differences
between objectives and no-objective groups were found. However,
performance on the cognitive outcomes was extremely low and little
over chance level for two of the three outcomes.
In summary, of the seven studies which investigated the interaction of objectives and type of learning, only one (Papay, 1971) found
objectives to be more effective with one type of learning (knowledge)
than with others. This difference, furthermore, was apparent only on
the posttest and not on the retention test. While Yelon and Schmidt
(1971) found either a neutral or interfering effect for objectives with a
problem solving task, it is difficult to generalize their findings to
problem solving tasks normally found in the public schools. The other
studies reviewed found no significant interactions between objectives
and type of learning, although learning was categorized in a number of
different ways.
Learner Characteristics
This group of studies has attempted to discover interactions
between the availability of objectives and certain learner characteristics.
Eight studies are reviewed in this category.
Cook (1969) investigated the effect of the availability of behavioral objectives and an outline of the learning hierarchy. A group of 88
elementary education majors was administered a set of 10 self-instructional mathematics booklets during a period of eight consecutive days.
The Ss were assigned to a control group, an objective group, a
hierarchy-outline group, and an objective-hierarchy group. The Ss were
further blocked according to their grade in a mathematics course
during the previous semester. Performance tests administered immedi59
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 43, No. 1

ately after the instructional units failed to show significant differences

between the groups. However, a significant treatment by ability level
interaction indicated that middle ability students profited most from
the objective-hierarchy treatment.
The first eight self-instructional units from the Intermediate
Science Curriculum Study program were utilized by Conlon (1970) to
investigate the effects of behavioral objectives. Two seventh grade
classes were provided with instructional material and behavioral
objectives while two additional classes received instructional materials
without objectives. The Ss were blocked (high, medium, and low) on
the College Aptitude Rating Test. The experimental group received one
to three pages of specific instructional objectives each week of the
course. The performance of the behavioral objectives group was
superior to that of the control group on a standardized test of
understanding in college economics as well as on a locally developed
achievement test. However, no ability by treatment interactions were
obtained.
Kueter (1970) investigated the interaction of student personality
factors and behavioral objectives on recognition learning. The High
School Personality Inventory was used to block the Ss on 14
personality traits according to degree (low, medium, or high). Within
these levels Ss were then randomly assigned to a behavioral objective
group or a no-objective group. The sixth, seventh and eighth grade Ss
were then shown a ten-minute color film on "The Monarch Butterfly."
A recognition test was administered immediately after the film and an
identical test was administered one week later. The behavioral objective
groups showed superior performance on both tests. However, objectives
were less effective for Ss with personality traits of submissiveness,
self-control, considerateness, conscientiousness, or low ergic tension.
Etter (1969) concentrated on individual differences of adult
learners as they related to achievement with prior knowledge of
objectives. Forty males and 40 females from various adult education
programs volunteered for the study. The learner characteristics included
in the study were: age, sex, socioeconomic status, learner outcome
preference, verbal ability, and life goals. The instructional task was a
135-frame programmed text on the stock market. The Ss were assigned
to a specific objective group, a general objective group, and a
no-objective group. Although no main effect for objectives was found,
high socioeconomic status males in the specific objective group scored
significantly higher than others with specific objectives.
The interaction of cognitive abilities with the availability of rules
and/or behavioral objectives in learning an imaginary science by
computer-assisted instruction (CAI) was investigated by Merrill (1970).
The 130 college level Ss were required to reach a minimum criterion
performance at each level of the task before proceeding to the next
level. The Ss were assigned to an example only group, an objective60

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

DUCHASTEL & MERRILL

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING

example group, rule-example group or an objective-rule-example group.

Before learning the task the Ss were given a battery of six cognitive
ability tests. Objectives significantly reduced the number of examples
required to learn the task. However, they also increased or had no
effect on display latency but significantly reduced test-item-response
latency. A significant ability by treatment interaction with test-itemresponse latency as the criterion revealed that the availability of
objectives and/or rules reduced the requirement for reasoning ability.
In a similar experiment, Merrill and Towle (1971) examined the
effects of behavioral objectives and/or test items on the learning
process. The same imaginary science materials were used and presented
in CAI mode. In this study however, the Ss were not required to meet
criterion before going to the next module of instruction. The 123
college students were assigned to either an example only group, an
objective-example group, a test-example group, or an objective-testexample group. Along with an example or an example and an objective,
the last two groups also received criterion referenced test items, to
which the Ss responded, for each rule of the task. However, no
feedback was provided. No significant differences were found between
the groups with posttest scores as criterion. Objectives significantly
increased the amount of time Ss spent studying the example displays. A
significant ability by treatment interaction revealed that display latency
had a negative relationship to reasoning ability for Ss in the
test-example and objective-test-example groups, but was not related to
reasoning for Ss in the example-only and objective-example groups.
Differential relationships between state anxiety and treatments were
also observed.
Merrill and Towle (1972) investigated the effects of providing
behavioral objectives in a graduate course in programmed instruction.
Their 32 Ss took six units of instruction either with or without
behavioral objectives. No significant differences were found between
the groups on unit test scores, test-item-response latencies or study
time. However, the availability of the objectives decreased the level of
Ss' state anxiety for the first three units.
In summary, behavioral objectives have been found to interact
with a number of learner characteristics. With respect to aptitude,
conflicting evidence has been reported. When blocked on grades from a
previous course, middle ability students profited more under an
objective-hierarchy treatment than under no-objective, objective only,
or hierarchy only treatments. When blocked on a standardized test of
ability, no interactions were found in either of two studies. However, an
interaction was found with reasoning ability in one study where
objectives reduced the requirement for reasoning. In another study,
objectives were less effective for Ss with certain personality characteristics. With respect to state anxiety, no interaction was found in one
short term study, but objectives reduced the level of state anxiety in a
second long-term study.
61
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 43, No. 1

Time to Criterion
The three studies included in this final category investigated the
hypothesis that students provided with objectives will take less time to
learn instructional material than students without objectives.
In a study by Mager and McCann reported by Mager and Clark
(1963), graduate engineers participating in a specialized six months
engineering course were given 24 pages of detailed course objectives. All
classes were cancelled and the Ss were told that they would have
complete control over what they learned, when they learned it, and
from whom they learned it. They could ask for instruction from any
instructor but were told not to accept instruction they did not want. As
a result, they completed the six months course in approximately 7
weeks, thus reducing training time by 65%. They also appeared to be as
well, if not better, equipped than the graduates of the traditional
program.
In a study by Allen and McDonald reported by Mager and Clark
(1963) Ss were required to learn the pieces, rules, and strategies of a
new game. The first group was given a linear programmed text, while a
second group was provided with a list of objectives and an instructor
that could be turned on and off at will. The second group mastered the
game nearly as well as the first group in half the time. It should be
noted, however, that the last two studies reviewed are heavily
confounded by the student control variable, thus making interpretations with regard to objectives only very tentative.
The relationship between the availability of behavioral objectives
and time was also investigated in a more controlled situation by Smith
(1970). His experimental group was informed of both the hierarchical
structure of the topic and the behavioral objectives associated with each
step. The 73 college students then undertook a 6-week period of
independent study concerning finite set theory. However, no significant
differences were obtained with respect to the time required to complete
the learning sequence.
In summary, the provision of learner control along with objectives
would seem to greatly reduce learning time when compared to a no
learner control condition. However, when only objectives distinguish
between treatments, as in Smith's (1970) independent study situation,
they do not seem to reduce learning time. The results reported by Dalis
(1970) and Merrill and Towle (1972) further point to this conclusion.
Other studies mentioned earlier, (Merrill, 1970; Merrill & Towle, 1971),
have also looked at time factors, although in a learning situation much
more structured and short in duration. Their findings indicate that
subjects provided with objectives spend more total study time on the
learning task. If we consider the time involved in reading the objectives
as negligible, objectives would then seem to increase the amount of
attention paid to the instructional materials themselves.
62
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

DUCHASTEL & MERRILL

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING

General Summary
Results obtained from the research which simply addressed the
general issue are, to say the least, inconsistent. Studies which have
found no significant differences between experimental and control
groups are as numerous as those which have found such a difference.
Furthermore, when we consider the total number of studies which have
investigated effects on student achievement, an even smaller proportion
of studies have found a significant main effect for this variable.
However, those studies which have found such an effect have usually
favored the presentation of objectives (the one exception is the Yelon
and Schmidt (1971) study). A further difficulty in interpretation arises
in those studies which have found different results between immediate
learning and retention.
Within this overall picture, we have looked at three factors which
could have perhaps accounted for the discrepancies. The first of these is
the topic or subject matter used in the learning materials. Topics ranged
from the physical sciences to the social sciences, but this factor did not
seem to bring any more consistency to the results. The second factor
we looked at was level of schooling. Here again, it did not seem to
matter whether the study was conducted with primary, secondary,
college, or adult learners. Neither did the time factor seem to bring any
more clarity to the results: positive findings were found with a
10-minute instructional period just as with instruction ranging over
many weeks. It is difficult to say at this time whether any other
characteristics may be at play and could possibly clarify the situation.
Type of learning, a variable which has been investigated in a
number of studies, seems to contribute little to an explanation of the
phenomenon. Also, the investigation of learning time as a factor has
resulted in ambiguous findings. On the other hand, a number of
individual differences have been found to interact with objectives,
pointing to the need to restrict any generalizations.
Discussion
Decision-Oriented Aspects
What does the present review bring to the decision-making process
which administrators, teachers, and educators at all levels must face
with respect to the value of providing their students with behavioral
objectives? The evidence reported here demonstrates the complexity of
the issue, and the many seemingly contradictory results obtained by
various researchers points to the wide array of variables involved.
However, as Rothkopf (personal communication September 15, 1972)
has pointed out, this review has shown that objectives sometimes help
and are almost never harmful. Therefore, if the provision of objectives
is relatively inexpensive, one might as well make them available to
students. 63
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 43, No. 1

As previously pointed out, we believe the functions of behavioral

objectives are not always clearly differentiated in discussions of the
concept. It is extremely important, therefore, to keep very clearly in
mind that the only issue addressed in this review was that of providing
students with objectives. It would be indeed unfortunate if this review
were used in one way or another through overgeneralization to
influence or advocate a position with respect to the value of behavioral
objectives in their other (and perhaps primary) functions: direction for
teaching and guidance in evaluation.
Conclusion-Oriented Aspects
Since the main effects reported in this review have been
inconsistent, it may be advisable to turn to a more basic line of research
and investigate the possible interactions of the availability of objectives
with concomitant variables. This line of research can be labeled as
conclusion-oriented (Cronbach & Suppes, 1968) in that it is directed
more toward theory development than toward immediately relevant
instructional answers. From the evidence reported, we see the need to
continue to investigate the effects of behavioral objectives as they
interact with both task and learner characteristics. With respect to type
of learning, results have not been very promising. However, it is very
possible that objectives could interact with other task characteristics
such as structure, familiarity, sequence, etc.
As an instructional variable, behavioral objectives would seem to
fit into the class of variables termed orienting stimuli (Rothkopf, 1970;
Frase, 1970). In this sense, they refer to stimuli which activate
inspection behaviors on the part of the student, which in turn
determine what is learned. As orienting stimuli, they are analogous to
questions (Frase, 1970) and advance organizers (Ausubel, 1968).
Generally, the research on the effects of questions on learning from
text has resulted in findings of interactions with position of questions,
contiguity of questions and content, type of questions, individual
differences in motivation, and text characteristics (Frase, 1970). The
research with advance organizers is very similar to that of specific
objectives in that main effects have often been inconsistent and the
effort has been turning to an analysis of interactions (Ausubel &
Fitzgerald, 1962; Dawson, 1965; Allen, 1969).
Conclusions
In concluding this review, it would seem profitable to briefly
reconsider various rationales which predict a facilitative effect of
behavioral objectives on learning and to suggest how these hypotheses
may be operationalized in experimental research.
One function of presenting behavioral objectives to students may
be to provide direction to their learning. By determining exactly what is
expected of them, objectives would assist them in discriminating
between relevant and incidental or illustrative content. Hypotheses of
64
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

DUCHASTEL & MERRILL

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING

this nature have been investigated by Rothkopf and Kaplan (1972) and
Morse and Tillman (1972). In each of these studies relevant learning
was found to be greater than incidental learning.
A second function of objectives may lie in the fact that objectives
could provide some organization to the subject matter, much the same
as is done by preceding materials with an advance organizer. In this
sense, objectives would facilitate the student's integration of diverse
units of information by providing a general structure to the content.
This hypothesis, it seems, could be investigated by analyzing the effects
of objectives within sets of learning materials which are characterized
by different degrees of structure, such as randomly versus logically
sequenced programmed instructional materials.
A number of other possible functions of providing objectives to
students may be hypothesized, although operationalizing these hypotheses may be somewhat more difficult. The first of these is that
objectives may serve a management function by enabling the student to
better organize his time and learning experiences in accordance with the
goals of his courses. Such self-management may help the student avoid
procrastination and the resulting cramming sessions which often
precede final examinations. A related function of objectives may be
that of providing feedback to the learner with respect to his fulfilling
the learning task. Thus, a list of objectives would enable the student to
repeatedly compare his performance to the criteria involved in the
objectives, and thereby effectively deal with any resulting discrepancies.
Finally, a further function of objectives may be to activate and
maintain a certain kind of task reinforcement. For example, the student
who knows he is mastering a set of objectives as he progresses through
the learning task will probably be more effective than the student
whose only reinforcement comes with a grade at the end of instruction.
While these last three substantive hypotheses may be difficult to
actually deal with, the first two hypotheses would seem to be more
amenable to investigation. However, certain practical difficulties, which
may have caused some of the studies reviewed in this paper to result in
non-significant findings, should be avoided. The most evident of these
relates to the use which the students make of the objectives. Indeed,
objectives will certainly make no difference if the student pays no
attention to them in the learning situation. Tiemann (1968) has
suggested that the possible effects of objectives may not be detected if
the Ss are not convinced that the posttest will be directly referenced to
the objectives available to them. Therefore, in future research we
should endeavor to insure that Ss understand the meaning of objectives
and actually use them while learning. Perhaps even more than a short
training session will be required to accomplish this (Morse & Tillman,
1972).
A second difficulty involved in research on objectives lies in the
nature of the objectives themselves. A set of behavioral objectives has
many dimensions which should be taken into account in designing
research and reporting results. Of special importance is the dimension
65

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 43, No. 1

of specificity which may not necessarily concord with the dimension

which categorizes objectives as behavioral or non-behavioral. Future
research should seek to clarify these dimensions through explicit
operational definitions. A further consideration is the number of objectives provided to the student. Situations may well arise in which a list of
objectives is so extensive and detailed that the student is actually
overwhelmed and confused by the objectives. Such a list of objectives
may defeat its own purpose.
As a final note, we recommend the extension of the present line of
research which involves the investigation of interactions between the
availability of objectives and both task characteristics and individual
differences. It seems that this approach will lead to the most fruitful
results.
References
Allen, D. I. Effects on the learning and retention of written social studies material
of the use of advance organizers with memory level or higher order questions.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California (Berkeley), 1969.
Atkin, J. M. Behavioral objectives in curriculum design: A cautionary note. In R. C.
Anderson, et al. (Eds.) Current research on instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.
J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Pp. 60-65.
Ausubel, D. P. Educational psychology: A cognitive view. N. Y.: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1968.
Ausubel, D. P., & Fitzgerald, D. Organizer, general background, and antecedent
learning variables in sequential verbal learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1962, 53, 243-249.
Baker, E. L. Effects on student achievement of behavioral and non-behavioral
objectives. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1969, 37, 5-8.
Bishop, D. D. Effectiveness of prior exposure to performance objectives as a
technique for improvement of student recall and retention. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1969.
Blaney, J. P., & McKie, D. Knowledge of conference objectives and effect upon
learning. Adult Education Journal, 1969, 29,98-105.
Boardman, E. The effects of advanced knowledge of behavioral objectives on
students' achievement in remedial chemistry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UCLA, 1970.
Briggs, L. J. Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. American
Institutes for Research, Monograph No. 4, 1970.
Briggs, L. J., Stoker, H. W., & Scanlon, P. Comparison of performance on
objective-referenced vs. content referenced achievement tests. Mimeographed
document, Florida State University, 1971.
Brown, J. L. The effects of revealing instructional objectives on the learning of
political concepts and attitudes in two role-playing games. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California (Los Angeles), 1970.
Bryant, N. The effects of performance objectives on the achievement level of
selected eighth-grade science pupils in four predominantly black inner-city
schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970.
Conlon, B. A. A comparison of the performance of seventh-grade studentswith and
without prior knowledge of the objectives of an individualized science
program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1970.
Cook, J. M. Learning and retention by informing students of behavioral objectives
and their place in the hierarchical learning sequence. USOE Final Report,
1969. ERIC: ED 036 869.
Oonbach, L. J., & Suppes, P. (Eds.) Research for tomorrow's schools: Disciplined
inquiry for education. London: Macmillan, 1969.
66

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

DUCHASTEL & MERRILL

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING

Dalis, G. T. Effect of precise objectives upon student achievement in health

education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1970, 39.
Dawson, K. E. The effectiveness of subsuming concepts in teaching industrial arts.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1965.
Doty, C. R. The effect of practice and prior knowledge of educational objectives on
performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1968.
Ebel, R. L. Behavioral objectives: A close look. Phi Delta Kappan, 1970, 52,
171-173.
Eisner, E. W. Educational objectives: Help or hindrance. School Review, 1967, 75,
251-282.
Engel, R. S. An experimental study of the effect of stated behavioral objectives on
achievement in a unit of instruction on negative and rational base systems of
numeration. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Maryland, 1968.
Etter, D. C. G. Adult learner characteristics and instructional objectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California (Los Angeles), 1969.
Frase, L. T. Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors. Review of
Educational Research, 1970, 40, 337-348.
Gagne, R. M. The conditions of learning. (2nd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1970.
Griffin, J. Z. The relationship between behavioral objectives and measurement
instruments used to evaluate student progress in an urban adult basic
education program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of
America, 1971.
Jenkins, J. R., & Deno, S. L. Influence of knowledge and type of objectives on
subject matter learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 67-70.
Kueter, R. A. Instructional strategies: The effect of personality factors on
recognition learning using statements of behavioral objectives as opposed to
no statements of behavioral objectives prior to instruction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970.
Lawrence, R. M. The effects of three types of organizing devices on academic
achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland,
1970.
Lndvall, C. M. (Ed.) Defining educational objectives. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1964.
Mager, R. F. Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon, 1962.
Mager, R. F., & Clark, C. Explorations in student-controlled instruction. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 71-76.
McNeil, J. D. Concomitants of using behavioral objectives in the assessment of
teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Experimental Education. 1967, 36,
69-74.
Merrill, P. F. Interaction of cognitive abilities with availability of behavioral
objectives in learning a hierarchical task by computer-assisted instruction.
Technical Report No. 5. Austin, Texas: CAI Laboratory, University of Texas,
1970.
Merrill, P. F., & Towle, N. J. Interaction of abilities and anxiety with availability of
objectives and/or test items on computer-based task performance. Proceedings 79th Annual Convention, American Psychological Association,
1971, 539-540.
Merrill, P. F., & Towle, N. J. The effects of the availability of objectives on
performance in a computer-managed graduate course. Tech Memo No. 47.
Tallahassee: CAI Center, Florida State University, 1972.
Morse, J., & Tillman, M. Effects on achievement of possession of behavioral
objectives and training concerning their use. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1972.
Nelson, D. L. The effect of specifically stated instructional objectives on the
achievement of collegiate undergraduate economics students. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1970.
Olson, G. H. A multivariate examination of the effects of behavioral objectives,
67
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 43, No. 1

knowledge of results, and the assignment of grades on the facilitation of

classroom learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1971.
Oswald, J. M., & Fletcher, J. D. Some measured effects of specificity and cognitive
level of explicit instructional objectives upon test performance among
eleventh grade social science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, 1970.
Papay, J. P. An investigation of the effects of type, location, and distribution of
learning instructions on the acquisition and retention of meaningful prose
materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1971.
Piatt, R. G. An investigation of the effect the training of teachers in defining,
writing, and implementing educational behavioral objectives has on learner
outcomes for students enrolled in a seventh-grade mathematics program in
the public schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University,
1969.
Popham, W. J. Probing the validity of arguments against behavioral goals. In R. C.
Anderson, et al. (Eds.) Current research on instruction. Englewood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Pp. 66-72.(a)
Popham, W. J. Objectives and instruction. In the American Educational Research
Association Monograph series on curriculum evaluation, No. 3, l969.(b)
Popham, W. J., & Husek, T. R. Implications of criterion-referenced measurement.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 1969, 6, 1-9.
Rothkopf, E. Z. The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational
Research, 1970, 40, 325-336.
Rothkopf, E. Z., & Kaplan, R. Exploration of the effect of density and specificity
of instructional objectives on learning from text. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1972, 63, 295-302.
Schneiderwent, M. O. The effects of using behavioral objectives in the instruction
of Harvard Project Physics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Northern Colorado, 1970.
Smith, J. M. Relations among behavioral objectives, time of acquisition, and
retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1970.
Smith, S. A. The effects of two variables on the achievement of slow learners on a
unit in mathematics. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Maryland,
1967.
Stedman, C. H. The effects of prior knowledge of behavioral objectives on cognitive
learning outcomes using programmed materials in genetics. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970.
Tiemann, P. W. Student use of behaviorally-stated objectives to augment conventional and programmed revisions of televised college economics lectures.
Paper read at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, 1968.
Tyler, R. W. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1950.
Weinberg, H. Effects of presenting varying specificity of course objectives to
students on learning motor skills and associated cognitive material. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1970.
Yelon, S. L., & Schmidt, W. H. The effect of objectives and instructions on the
learning of a complex cognitive task. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1971.

AUTHORS
PHILIPPE C. DUCHASTEL. Address: Department of Educational Research and
Testing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306. Title: Doctoral
candidate. Degrees: B. A., Universit de Montreal; M.S., Florida State
University. Specialization: Instructional Psychology; Use of Computers for
Instruction.
68

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

DUCHASTEL & MERRILL

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING

PAUL F. MERRILL. Address: Center for Computer Support of Instruction, Florida

State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306. Title: Assistant Professor of
Educational Research. Degrees: B. S., Brigham Young University; Ph. D.
University of Texas at Austin. Specialization: Instructional Research; Use of
Computers for Instruction.

69
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016