Criterion-Referenced Instruction (Robert F.
Mager)
Steve Cox
In the book, Preparing Instructional Objectives
(1962), Robert Mager delivered a teatise arguing for the use of objectives in
the educational system. The use of objectives are designed to drive instruction
by stating objectives. This allows instructors to set up measures and
evaluation tools. It allows students and instructors to determine what is to be
accomplished, a way to determine what should be taught, and a way to measure
accomplishment. In general, the
use of objectives in the classroom are listed as follows (Mager, 1975, p. 1).
1.
Clarify and specify outcomes.
2.
Select and arrange
learning experiences.
3.
Evaluate student
performance.
Mager
presents three reasons for the use of objectives (Mager, 1975, p. 6).
1. Without objectives, there is no sound basis for selecting or designing instructional material.
2.
Without objectives, it is impossible to determine
if something has been accomplished because you do not know what is to be achieved,
how to measure achievement, or how to assess the success of instruction.
3.
Without objectives, it is difficult
to organize student efforts and activities for accomplishment of instructional
intent.
1. There is a reason for learning the focus of the objectives.
2.
Students do not already know it and instruction
is the best means for bringing about a desired change.
You
must select and arrange learning experiences for your students in accordance
with principles of learning and must evaluate student performance according to
the objectives originally selected. In other words, first you decide where you
want to go, then you create and administer the means of getting there, and then
you arrange to find out whether you arrived.
Mager emphasizes the importance of stating specific
objectives that identify the act to be learned. He lists three characteristics
of objectives (Mager, 1975, p. 21).
1. Performance - What the student will be able to do.
2.
Conditions - The conditions under which performance
occurs.
3.
Criteria - An explicit description of acceptable
performance.
Objectives must be stated. Performance must be
directly observable or be assessable. In order to assess performance, there may
be a set of conditions the student may be under when demonstrating mastery of
the objective (Mager, 1975, p. 51). These conditions or constraints should be
built into the objective. The criteria must describe the acceptable level of
performance. Performance may be measured as a function of speed, accuracy, or
quality. The criterion can only be used when it is available to both student
and instructor (Mager, 1975, p 71-84).
In order to use objectives, Mager
provides guidelines for writing specific, instructional objectives. These
guidelines are listed as follows (Biehler & Snowman, 1991, p. 290).
1.
Describe what you want
learners to be doing when demonstrating achievement, and indicate how you will
know they are doing it.
2.
In your description,
identify and name the behavioral act that indicates achievement, define the
conditions under which the behavior is to occur, and state the criterion of
acceptable performance.
3.
Write a separate
objective for each learning performance.
For vocational education, Mager and Beach (1967, p.
44-51) employs Dr. Robert Sagnes types of performance which is divided into
discrimination,, problem solving, recall, manipulation, and speech. In order
for objectives to have the desired outcome, the appropriate sequence must be
followed in order for students to learn the task.
Mager argues that instruction is perceived to be a
linear progression. In practice, it in iterative process with three phases
(Mager and Beach, 1967, p. 3).
Mager points out further that objectives can be
used to drive to effective and efficient instruction. His objectives have led
to the criterion-referenced test. A criterion-referenced test provides for the
evaluation of a student’s performance with reference to specified
criteria or to that individual’s previous level of performance, complying
with the three stages of instruction.
Mager’s contemporaries, Benjamin Bloom
and John Carroll endorse the concept of Mastery Learning (Biehler & Snowman,
1991, p. 599-600). Instruction is somewhat independent and provides for the
student to continue working on a skill or subject area until it is mastered.
Mastery learning depends on developing measurable objectives in which to measure
students. An outgrowth of Mastery Learning, is the employment of criterion-referenced
grading. Grades are assigned based on performance as interpreted in terms
of defined criteria. Criterion-reference grading provides an alternative to
norm-referenced grading. Criterion-reference grading has become more popular
in recent years because of the following three factors (Biehler & Snowman,
1991, p. 600).
1. Educators and parents have criticized norm-referenced test for providing little specific information.
2.
Many educators have taken the position that
specific objectives are best assessed with criterion-referenced measures.
3.
Mastery learning assumes that students can
master most school objectives under the right circumstances.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of objectives has been
mixed. Duchastel and Merrill in a 1973 review of over fifty studies noted that
a number of demonstrated a significant difference. However, an equal number
fail to show any significant difference (Biehler & Snowman, 1991, p.
299-300).
Studies on the effectiveness of objectives have been
inclusive. There are four variables that affect the evaluation (Biehler &
Snowman, 1991, pp. 299-300). The variables are listed as follows;
1.
Individual differences,
2.
Variation in subject
matter under study,
3.
Variations in the type
of objective provided, and
4.
Variations in the he
outcome that is measured.
Early research assumed the variables to be of little
or no importance. Later studies have focused on questions that identify the use
of objectives with individual learning style, identify subjects that lend
themselves to the use of objectives, or identify the types of things where use
of objectives improves learning or development of skills. Reviews by Faw &
Walker in 1976, Klauer in 1984, and Melton in 1978 have drawn the following
conclusions about using objectives (Biehler & Snowman, 1991, pp. 299-301).
1. Objectives work best when students are aware of them, understand that they provide direction in learning specific sections of material, and believe they aid in their learning.
2.
Objectives work best when they are clearly
written and the specified objectives are not too difficult to too easy to
achieve.
3.
Students of average ability benefit more from
the use of objectives than those of higher or lower ability.
4.
Objective improve intentional learning, but
lead to a decrease in incidental learning.
The very specific kinds of objectives
Mager recommended have proven useful in areas where students acquire factual
information or develop simple skills.
Duchastel and Merrill’s reviews found the use of
objectives to be inconclusive but stated that the use of objectives sometimes
help and are not harmful (Biehler & Snowman, 1991, p. 299-302). In 1984,
Bloom concluded in a study that objectives rarely rose above the level of the
lowest category of the taxonomy (Biehler & Snowman, 1991, p. 302).
In 1991, Gronlund proposed a procedure of writing more
general objectives. Gronlund argues against the Mager objectives for the
following four reasons (Biehler & Snowman, 1991, p. 291-292).
1. Most learning activities are much too complex to be described in specific objectives for each learning outcome.
2.
Specific objectives may have the effect of
instructors and students focusing on simple skills and memorization of facts.
3.
By creating specific objectives for each outcome,
instructors become restricted by employing long cumbersome lists.
4.
The main outcome of education is a general
outcome, not simple behaviors.
The use of objectives has been endorsed and mandated
by the United States Department of Education in special education. Individual
Education Plans (IEPs) and Individual Transition Plans (ITPs) are required for
every student in special education. These plans require that goals and
objectives be set over the course of an academic year and sometimes over
multiple years. Special education instructors are held accountable for
accomplishment of the objectives. The state of Ohio requires an Individual
Career Plan (ICP) be created for every student in junior high and high school.
In its contemporary form, embracing
criterion-reference instruction implies individualized instruction. It sets a
level of performance that can be validated. Vocational programs in
Kansas’ community colleges are required to assess students based on
competencies. A competency form is developed for each student. Implementation
often involves stating the specific objectives and detailing the degree of
accomplishment. Syllabi are required to list objectives for the course.
Usually, the objectives are rather general, as detailed objectives for each
activity would become quite tedious. Lesson plans usually specify an objective
and a means for meeting that objective.
Mager’s idea of stating objectives seems practical.
On face value, it seems common sense to develop a set of objectives and develop
an instructional strategy for meeting that objective. Research has led to
criticism that Mager’s specific objectives leads to the development of
objectives that tap only the lowest levels of the cognitive taxonomy. Mager
rejects the use of objectives in the affective domain (Mager & Beach, 1967,
p. 71). Research suggests that its primary application is in the psychomotor
domain.
Gronlund’s work on objectives included the development
of lists of verbs and phrases that can be used for writing more general
objectives in all of Bloom’s domains (Biehler & Snowman, 1991, p.
291-292). Educators who actively choose to use the taxonomy and
Gronlund’s strategies can develop objectives in all levels of the
taxonomy.
Mager, along with Flanagan and Shanner (1971),
developed several books of objectives in the areas of social studies, language
arts, mathematics, and science. These objectives had been compiled from
objectives used by instructors. Banks of objectives can be found in special
education coded in the computer programs by PennStar and the New York
Department of Education (Central Susquehana Intermediate Unit 16, 1984 &
New York Department of Education, 1986). The number of specific objectives is
staggering. Instructors may find the number of objectives overwhelming.
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
accrediting organization has placed an emphasis in community colleges in
assessing student performance, requiring these colleges to develop assessment
plans. Various colleges in the state of Kansas have developed, or are in the
process of developing, assessment plans. While the government and accrediting
bodies have good intentions, it is possible to create a maze of paper, rules,
and regulations primarily focused on the form, technique, and flow of
objectives between schools and authorities, rather than focusing attention on
the individual. The United States Department of Education has focused on
mandating Individual Education Plans, but not specifying its form. Many states
have passed the same mandate to individual school systems without dictating
form.
Mager’s use of objectives is very good.
Gronlund’s work in development of general objectives may meet the
political needs of states and the organizational needs of schools. Research
into the effectiveness and efficiency in using objectives is complicated by
external variables. Research will continue in the classroom in experiments by
researchers and teachers. Mastery learning and attention to the individual is
viewed as being beneficial to the student, while caution must be taken when
being administered for other uses.
References
Biehler, R. & Snowman, J. (1993). Psychology applied to teaching (7th ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Central Susquehana Intermediate Unit 16. (1984).
PennStar IEP system master curriculum manual. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
Flanagan, J., Shanner, W., & Mager, R. (1971).
Social studies behavioral objectives. Palo Alto, California: Westinghouse
Learning Corporation.
Flanagan, J., Shanner, W., & Mager, R. (1971).
Language Arts behavioral objectives. Palo Alto, California: Westinghouse
Learning Corporation.
Flanagan, J., Shanner, W., & Mager, R. (1971).
Mathematics behavioral objectives. Palo Alto, California: Westinghouse Learning
Corporation.
Flanagan,
J., Shanner, W., & Mager, R. (1971). Science behavioral objectives.
Palo Alto, California: Westinghouse Learning Corporation.
Mager, R., & Beach,, K. (1967). Developing
vocational instrruction. Belmont,
California: Pitman Learning.
Mager, R. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives
(2nd ed.). Belmont, California: Pitman Learning.
New York Department of Education. (1986). Part 200:
Bank of goals and objectives. Albany, New York.