Abstract: . . .  and specificity of instructional obj ectives on learning from text’, Journal of Educa- tional Psychology , 63, 295-302. Rothkopf, E.Z. and Kaplan, R. (1974) ‘Instructional objectives as directions to learners: effect of passage length and amount of objective-relevant content’, Journal of Educational Psychology , 4, 448-456. Rowntree, D. (1982) Educational Technology in Curric- ulum Development . London: Harper and Row. Seddon, G.M. (1978) ‘The properties of Bloom’s taxon- omy of educational objectives for the cognitive do- main’, Review of Educational Research , 48, 303- 323. Simpson, E.J. (1966) . . .
. . .  University, CAI Cen- tre. Duchastel, P.C. (1977) Functions of Instructional Ob- jectives: Organization and Direction . Paper present- ed at the meeting of the American Educational Re- search Assoc iation, New York, April. Duchastel, P.C. and Merrill, P.F. (1973) ‘The effects of behavioural objectives on learning: a review of em- pirical studies’, Review of Educational Research , 43(1), 53-69. Engel, R.S. (1968) ‘An Experimental Study of the Effect of Stated Behavioural Objectives on Achievement in a Unit of Instruction on Negative and Rational Base Systems of Numeration.’ Unpublished Master’s the- sis, . . .
. . .  favour he concluded that they formed the basis of the only well-worked out method of rational planning in education, encouraging detailed planning and making explicit previously concealed values. They were seen as providing a basis for evaluation and the choice of instructional means, within a self-improving system which achieves internal consistency and the attainment of its initial aims. Objectives act as a medium of communication and can form the basis for individual- ising instruction. However, there were certain disadvantages. The most serious were that there was no view as to the origins . . .
. . .  than others. In the fine arts and humanities it would be particularly difficult. ‘Tough but not impossible’, was Popham’s reply, and he gave an example that many students must have sympa- thized with: Any English teacher, for example, will tell you how difficult it is to make a valid judgement of a pupil’s essay response. Yet criteria lurk whenever this teacher does make a judgement, and these criteria must be made explicit. (Popham, 1969, p.50) Another reason for not adopting objectives was that if most educational goals were stated precisely, they would be revealed as generally innocuous. Popham . . .
. . .  the objectives and must read them for there to be a positive effect. The difficulty of the objectives may also be a factor, accord- ing to Brown (1970), for if the objectives are extremely difficult the majority of students will fail to master them and it will be difficult to discriminate between the performance of students who do and do not receive the objectives. These and other results led Melton to the conclusion that there were five conditions under which objectives would be ineffective: 1. If students ignore the objectives pro- vided, either because they are una- ware of them, or because prior . . .
--3000,5,300,3377,55105