The effects of behavioral objectives on learning: A review of empirical studies

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.