I N F O R M A T I O N TO USERS

This m aterial was produced fro m a m ic ro film co p y o f th e original d o c u m e n t. W h ile
the m ost advanced technological means to p h o to g ra p h and reproduce this d o c u m e n t
have been used, th e q u a lity is heavtly d e p e n d e n t upon th e q u a lity o f the original
sub m itted .
The

fo llo w in g

e x p la n a tio n

of

techniques

is p rovided

to

help

yo u

understand

m arkings or patterns w hich m ay appear on this re p ro d u c tio n .
1. T h e sign or " ta rg e t" fo r pages a p p a re n tly lacking fro m th e d o c u m en t
photographed is "M issing Page(s)"- If it was possible to o b ta in th e missing
page(s) or section, th ey are spliced in to th e film along w ith ad jacen t pages.
This m a y have necessitated c u ttin g th ru an image and d u p lic a tin g adjacent
pages to insure yo u co m p lete c o n tin u ity .
2. W hen an image on the film is o b lite ra te d w ith a large ro u n d black m a rk , it
is an in d ic atio n th a t the p h o to g ra p h er suspected th a t th e co p y m ay have
m oved d u rin g exposure and thus cause a b lu rred image. Y o u w ill fin d a
good image o f the page m the adjacent fram e.
3. W hen a m ap , d raw in g or chart, e tc ., was p art o f the m a te ria l being
pho tographed
the
pho tographer
fo llo w e d
a d e fin ite
m eth o d
in
"s e c tio n in g " the m ateria l. It is cu sto m ary to begin p h o to in g at the upper
le ft hand corner o f a targe sheet and to c o n tin u e p h o to in g fro m le ft to
right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
co n tin u ed again — beginning b e lo w the firs t ro w and c o n tin u in g on until
co m p lete.
4. T h e m a jo rity o f users indicate th a t th e te x tu a l c o n ten t is o f greatest value,
how ever, a so m ew h at higher q u a lity re p ro d u c tio n co u ld be m ade fro m
"p h o to g ra p h s " if essential to the understanding of the d issertatio n . Silver
prints o f "p h o to g ra p h s " m ay be ordered at a d d itio n al charge by w ritin g
the O rd er D e p a rtm e n t, giving the catalog num ber, title , a u th o r and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. P L E A S E
received.

NOTE:

Som e

pages

m ay

have

in d is tin c t

p rin t.

F ilm e d

as

X e ro x U niversity M icro film s
3 0 0 N o r th Z e e b f lo a d
A n n A r b o r , M i c h ig a n 4 S 1 0 6

76-5656
STR HNC

la r r v

A

1 Q4 "*>-

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS’ RATINGS
OF THE MINIMAL READING SKILLS OF THE MICHIGAN
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AND
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.
Michigan State University, Ed.D., 1975
Education, curriculum and instruction

Xerox University Microfilms t

Ann A rb or, M ichig an 48106

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' RATINGS
OF THE MINIMAL READING SKILLS OF THE
MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
By
L a r r y A. Strong

A THESIS

S u b m it t e d to
M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e r e q u i r e m e n t s
f o r th e degr ee o f

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

C o l l e g e o f Edu ca ti on

1975

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' RATINGS
OF THE MINIMAL READING SKILLS OF THE
MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
By
L a r r y A. Strong

Purpose o f th e Stu dy
The purpose o f t h i s
t e a c h e r s v a l u e th e minimal

s tu dy was t o d e t e r m i n e
reading s k i l l s o f

Assessment Program, and ( 2 )
ment and te a c h e r s

ratin g s

(I)

t o what degr ee

th e M ic hi g an E d u c a t i o n a l

th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t a c h i e v e ­

(value)

p l a c e d on th e r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s *

P rocedure and Design
Teachers' ra tin g s of
of

th e M ic h ig an E d u c a t i o n a l

from 296 p r i m a r y t e a c h e r s
d is tric ts
in to

the minimal

from b2 e l e m e n t a r y b u i l d i n g s

Two mea su ri ng
(1)

Michigan,

The d i s t r i c t s were s t r a t i f i e d

instrum ent,

Grade F o u r ,

in t h i s s t u d y ;

P r im a r y T e a c h e r ' s

t h e M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l
O b jectives:

f o r m a t used

Assessment Program.

i n s t r u m e n t s were used

The su rv e y

in 21 school

by ty pe based on th e r e p o r t i n g

in th e M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l

gr ad e f o u r

Assessment Program (MEAP) were c o l l e c t e d

in Oakland County,

fiv e c la s s ific a tio n s

reading o b je c tiv e s

R a ti n g s o f

Assessment Program Reading
(2)

The M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l

Assessment Program 1973~197^ Grade Four Reading
O bjectives Test.

The o t h e r v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d w er e th e s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r *
Is tlc s o f;

c la s s ific a tio n ,

ence and gr ad e

lev el

years o f

teaching e x p e r i ­

taught.

The f o u r g e n e r a l
t.

sex, degree l e v e l ,

hypo the ses t e s t e d were:

Classroom te a c h e r s a g r e e t h a t th e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l
Assessment Program r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s a r e m i n i m a l .

2.

S e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f cla ss roo m t e a c h e r s w i l l
have no a f f e c t on t h e v a l u e
the minimal

3.

There

(ratin g )

teachers g iv e to

reading o b j e c t i v e s .

Is a r e l a t i o n s h i p

between s t u d e n t a c h ie v e m e n t on

the Michigan Educational

Assessment Program r e a d i n g

o b j e c t i v e s and th e v a l u e

(rating)

t e a c h e r s p l a c e on th e

o b ject Iv e s .
J*.

The v a l u e

(ratin g)

t e a c h e r s p l a c e on t h e o b j e c t i v e s w i l l

v a r y among th e f i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f school d i s t r i c t s
represented

in th e t o t a l

population.

M a jo r F i n d i n g s and Con clu sio ns
1.

Elem entary

t e a c h e r s do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l

Assessment Program Rea ding O b j e c t i v e s t o be m i n i m a l .
2.

The t y p e

(c la s s ific a tio n )

o f school d i s t r i c t

o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e do e f f e c t
give
3.

th e v a l u e

and t h e y e a r s

(ratin g )

teachers

t o the reading o b j e c t i v e s .

This study

fa ile d

to fin d a s t a t i s t i c a l l y

r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e a c h e r s '

sig n ific a n t

r a t i n g s o f th e r e a d i n g

o b j e c t i v e s and s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .

A.

The v a l u e

(ratin g )

t e a c h e r s gave t o th e r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s

d i d v a r y between the t y p e
A ll

of

th e o b j e c t i v e s

(c la s s ific a tio n )

are considered

Mic higan Depa rt men t o f

Education.

in t h i s s t u d y

i n t e r r e s p o n d e n t and

re la tiv e
a ll

of

in dicate

to the value o f

the o b j e c t i v e s
A dd itio nal

tives
If

m inim al,

further

t o be "minimal

by t h e

intrarespondent d iffe r e n c e s
It

is q u e s tio n a b le whether

shou ld be viewed as e s s e n t i a l l y equal

c o n s i d e r a t i o n on th e

is go in g

d is tric t.

V a r i a t i o n on the r a t i n g s by t h e s u b j e c t s

th e s e o b j e c t i v e s .

shou ld be a hi gh p r i o r i t y o f

the Depa rtme nt

o f school

Im p o rta nc e o f

in

importance.

the r e a d i n g o b j e c ­

th e M ic h ig a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n .

to co n tin u e to d e f i n e

the o b je c t iv e s

as

t e a c h e r s u p p o r t must be c o l l e c t e d and documented.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The w r i t e r w is h e s t o ex pr es s h i s g r a t i t u d e
( O o s t e r f o r h i s a d v i c e and encouragement
th esis.

A ppreciation

doctoral

g u id a nc e c o m m i t t e e .

Dr.

t o Dr. A l e x a n d e r

in the p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s

is a l s o ex te n de d t o t h e o t h e r members o f
These ge ntl emen a r e :

Frank Bruno, and D r. A l b e r t Le va k .

Dr.

Appreciation

the

L o ui s Romano,

i s g i v e n t o Dr.

H e r b e r t Rudman f o r h i s guida nce d u r i n g t h e w r i t e r ' s y e a r s o f s t u d y
a t M ic hi g an S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Special a p p r e c ia tio n
his

i s due Mr. Howard H e i t z e g who c o n t r i b u t e d

tim e and s u p p o r t d u r i n g the p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s
F in a lly ,

t o th e most

Janice - a sp ecial
support th is

thesis

i m p o r t a n t person -

acknowledgement

is g i v e n .

th esis .

th e w r i t e r ' s w i f e

Without her lo v e ,

and

and p r e v i o u s y e a r s o f s t u d y would n e v e r have been

completed.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
1.

II.

III.

IV.

PAGE
THE P R O B L E M .....................................................................................

1

Sta te m en t o f t h e Problem ...........................................................................
Importance o f th e S t u d y ........................................................................
Purpose o f t h e S t u d y ...........................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
.......................................................................
A s s u m p t i o n s .....................................................................................................
L Iml t a t i o n s ..................................................................
O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e Study
...............................................................
H y p ot h es is t o be T e s t e d ........................................................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n o f th e Remainder o f t h e T h e s i s .............................

1
3
7
7
10
11
11
12
13

RELATED LITERATURE

...............................................................

I 1*

S u m m a r y ...............................................................................................................

1*8

DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ..................................................................................

50

Sample S e l e c t i o n ...........................................................................................
I n t e r v i e w i n g P ro c e d u r e .............................................................................
M e a s u r e s ...............................................................................................................
Survey I n s t r u m e n t
.......................................................................................
D e s i g n ....................................................................................................................
T e s t a b l e H y p o t h e s e s ............................................................................ * •
A n a l y s i s ...............................................................................................................
S u m m a r y .........................................................................................................

52
55
56
56
57
57
59
61

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ...................................................................................

62

H y p o th e s is
I ..................................................
H y p ot h es is I I ...................................................................................................
H y p ot h es is I I I ...................................................................................................
H y p ot h es is I V ...............................
D i s c u s s i o n ..........................................................................................................
S u m m a r y ...............................................................................................................

62
62
69
69
73

Ml

Jk

CHAPTER
V.

PAGE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................

75

Summary
.........................................................................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ....................................................................................................
D i s c u s s i o n ....................................................................................................
Im plicatio ns
...............................................................................................

75
76
77
79

B I B L I O G R A P H Y .........................................................................

A P P E N D I X ...................................................................................................................

Iv

85

L I S T OF TABLES

SCHOOL DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS
IN OAKLAND COUNTY MICHIGAN .

.

.

NUMBER OF RESPONSES ..................................
SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS:
DEGREE LEVEL ...........................................
SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS:
YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE .

53

.

53

SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS:
GRADE LEVEL TAUGHT .............................

5*i

SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS:
SEX OF TEACHER .......................................

5*i

TEACHER* RATINGS OF THE
READING OBJECTIVES (GRADE *t)

63

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:

.

.

CLASSIFICATION

6*i

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: SEX . . . . .

6*i

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: GRADE LEVEL .

65

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
>EARS OF EXPERIENCE

........................

65

DEGREE LEVEL

65

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
OF THE FIVE CLASSIFICATIONS

.

66

SCHEFFE1 PAIR-WISE COMPARISONS:
CLASSIFICATION .......................................

67

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
. . . .

68

v

.

L I ST OF TABLES (c o n tin u e d )

TABLE
<1.10

l» . 1 l

it. 12

it. 13

it. lit

PAGE
SCHEFFE* PAIR-WISE COMPARISONS:
YEARS OF E X P E R I E N C E .........................................................................

68

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
FOR THE READING O B J E C T IV E S ..........................................................

70

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
C L A S S I F I C A T I O N .................................................................................

.

7*

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
OF THE FIVE C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S .....................................................

71

SCHEFFE1 PAIR-WISE COMPARISONS:
C L A S S I F I C A T I O N ....................................................

72

vl

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
S ta t e m e n t o f t h e Problem

The assessment o f e d u c a t i o n a l
atten tio n at

the n a t i o n a l ,

state,

a r e b e in g cond uct ed t o a s c e r t a i n

progress

and l o c a l

is p r e s e n t l y

le v e l.

th e e d u c a t i o n a l

receiving

Assessment programs

achievement o f students

in p u b l i c s c h o o l s .
In M i c h i g a n ,

th e Assessment o f Sducat io na l

Progress

component o f a s i x s t e p S t a t e A c c o u n t a b i 1 i t y Model.

i s one

T h i s model was

de vel oped by t h e M ic h ig a n Department o f E d u c a ti o n and I n c l u d e s
f o l l o w i n g components;
(4 )

Analysis o f

(1)

Common G o a l s ,

D e l i v e r y Systems,

(5)

(2)

O b jectives,

Evaluation,

The M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n
th e ac hi ev em en t o f a l l
on n i n e t e e n

fo u r th grade p u p ils

reading o b je c t iv e s .
reading o b je c tiv e s

p u b lic a tio n ,

some o b j e c t i v e s and t e s t

Assessment,

Recommendations.

is p r e s e n t ly

assessing

in th e S t a t e o f M ic h ig a n

P re vio u sly ,

tw enty-three

(6)

(3)

th e

the D epartme nt assessed

b u t a c c o r d i n g to a r e c e n t

Departme nt

items were d e l e t e d w i t h

th e
I
a d v i c e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and c u r r i c u l u m s p e c i a l i s t s .
The de velopment o f th e p e r f o r m a n c e o b j e c t i v e s , w h i c h
tifie s

what "o ug h t t o be t a u g h t " ,

is th e second s t e p o f t h e S t a t e Board

o f E d u catio n 's A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model.
reference t e s t ,

or o b je c tiv e

iden­

reference

The development o f
test

the c r i t e r i o n

i s an I m p o r t a n t component

1
M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , O b j e c t i v e s and Procedures
I97*t~75, L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , August 197**, p . 16.

1

2

2
o f th e t h i r d s t e p o f
Grade l e v e l

the B o a r d ' s A c c o u n t a b i l i t y

commissions were e s t a b l i s h e d by th e M ic hi g an

Department o f E d u ca ti on
teachers,

in 1 9 7 1 .

The commissions were g i v e n

ment

re vie w in g performance

r e fe re n t groups.

These p e rf o r m a n c e

r e p r e s e n t e d th e s t a t e - w i d e consensus o f

educators,

subject m a tte r

and o t h e r c i t i z e n s on th e m in im al

lev els o f a t t a i n ­

in r e a d i n g and r e p r e s e n t e d s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y

reading a t

fo r proficiency
3
t h e end o f th e a p p r o p r i a t e grade l e v e l .

The b a s i c purpose o f
Program has been i d e n t i f i e d
various p u b lic s
S c h o o ls .
for

school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and c i t i z e n s .

the r e s p o n s ib ility o f

o b j e c t i v e s de ve lo pe d by v a r i o u s

experts,

These commissions were composed o f

curriculum s p e c i a l i s t s ,

ob jectives

Model.

(1)

th e Michigan E d u c a t i o n a l
as th e communication o f

in M ic h ig a n a b o u t the e d u c a t i o n a l

S p e c ific a lly
providing

Assessment

inform ation

level

to

o f M ic h ig a n

th e o b j e c t i v e s o f th e assessment program c a l l

inform ation

to s t a t e - l e v e l

the p u b l i c c o n c e r n in g b a s i c s k i l l
local

In

d i s t r i c t s w ith s im ila r

government a g e n c i e s and

levels o f a tta in m e n t,

i n f o r m a t i o n , and

(3)

(2)

p rovidin g

providing a lo n -

t*
g itu d ln al

pictu re o f s k ills

attainm ent w ith in

t h e s t a t e as a w h o l e .

2

"Assessment Based on P re d e t e r m In e d O b j e c t i v e s " , Mich 1gan
Educa t i o n , June 1977, V o l . * i l , No. 9 , p. 33
M ic h ig a n Department o f E d u c a ti o n , O b j e c t i v e - R e f e r e n c e d T e s t t
A Summary, L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , F a l l 1973, P- I .
A
H e r b e r t C. Rudman, "Between Us . . . " , The Michigan
E l e m e n ta r y P r i n c i p a l , V o l . L , No. 1, F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 ^ , p . 107

3

Im po rta nce o f t h e Study

The s e l e c t i o n o f pe rf orm an ce o b j e c t i v e s
purposes

is r e c e i v i n g a h i g h p r i o r i t y

opment o f

in stru ctio n al

selection of o b jec tive s

programs.
is t h a t

for

in stru ctio n al

as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e d e v e l ­

The assumption u n d e r l y i n g t h e

they a r e p e r c e i v e d t o be o f v a l u e by

c la ss ro om t e a c h e r s .
I f c la s s r o o m t e a c h e r s do not v a l u e o b j e c t i v e s
u n lik e ly

that

they w i l l

r e c e i v e much emphasis

process and t h e r e f o r e w i l l

have m in im al

then

Is

in th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l

Impact on s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .

The M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n has m a i n t a i n e d
ob jectives

it

th at

th e

s e l e c t e d f o r assessment pu rposes were minimal and s h o u ld be
5

a t t a i n e d by a l l

beginning

fo u r th grade students

in th e S t a t e o f M i c h i g a n .

The Department has a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a t t a i n m e n t o f an o b j e c t i v e
based on e i g h t y p e r c e n t m a s t e r y , wh ich
ou t o f f i v e

test

is h a v i n g s t u d e n t s answer f o u r

items c o r r e c t l y .

The Department has m a i n t a i n e d
students

is

in a school o r d i s t r i c t

t h a t where l a r g e numbers o f

have n o t a t t a i n e d

th e o b j e c t i v e s ,

e d u c a t o r s shou ld ex am in e th e l o c a l c u r r i c u l u m t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r
s t u d e n t s have r e c e i v e d
changes shou ld be made.
tio n ,

ad d itio n a l

in struction

to w ar d t h e o b j e c t i v e s o r w h e t h e r

The changes may i n c l u d e a d d i t i o n a l

resources

t o p r o v i d e new o r a d d i t i o n a l

in s tru c ­

m ate ria ls

5
M ic h ig a n D ep ar tm e nt o f E d u c a t i o n , School and D i s t r i c t
R e p o r t s : E x p l a n a t o r y M a t e r i a l s , 1973~7*t, L a n s I n g , M i c h i g a n , (October
1973, P. 2 7

11

6
and s h i f t s

in t h e sequence and pa c in g o f

In s tru c tio n .

The M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a ti o n has s t a t e d ,
hope t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e s w h ic h w i l l
ment i n s t r u m e n t w i l l
and t h a t

form the b a s i s o f t h e f i n a l

assess­

im p o r t a n t minimal o b j e c t i v e s ,
7
In stru ctio n ."

to

The M i c h i g a n Department o f
p r e v i o u s p o s i t i o n on o b j e c t i v e s
that

is ou r

indeed be c o n s i d e r e d

they are s e n s i t i v e

m aintain

" It

Ed u ca ti on has m o d i f i e d t h e i r

in a l a t e r p u b l i c a t i o n .

They now

t h e r e a d in g o b j e c t i v e s a r e ones f o r which i t

t o have most s t u d e n t s a t t a i n .

A minim al o b j e c t i v e ,

is d e s i r a b l e

th erefo re,

i s one

8
which s t u d e n t s

should be a b l e t o a t t a i n as soon as p o s s i b l e .

Data c o l l e c t e d
Program r e v e a l s

In t h e

1973—7^* M ic h ig an E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment

t h a t an a v e r a g e o f f i f t y - f i v e

in the S t a t e o f Michig an a t t a i n e d
grade f o u r .
a ll

F iv e percent o f

s t u d e n t s and d i s t r i c t

M ic hi g an have f a i l e d
9

the

th e minimal

reading o b je c tiv e s a t

r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s were a t t a i n e d

performance

to a t t a i n

p e r c e n t o f th e s t u d e n t s

reveals

that a l l

m a s t e r y o f minimal

d is tric ts

by
in

o b j e c t i v e s a t grade

four.

6
M i c h i g a n Department o f
1 9 73- 7* *, O c t o b e r 1973, P- 2-

Fall

7
M i c h i g a n Department o f
1973, p. 1 .

Education,

School and D i s t r i c t

R ep ort s

E d u c a t i o n , O b j e c t i v e R e fe r e n c e d T e s t :

8
M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n ,
197**~75, August 197*t, p. 3-

O b j e c t i v e s and P ro c e d u r e s

9
H e r b e r t C. Rudman, "Between Us , . . " ,
P r i n c i p a l , V o l . L, No. 2, A p r i l 197*t, p. I I .

M i c h i g a n E le m e n t a r y

5

What has ac counted f o r t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s between what t h e
Department o f E d u c a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d as minimal a t t a i n m e n t and th e
actual

pe rf orm an ce o f s t u d e n t s on t h e o b j e c t i v e s ?

Rudman s t a t e s ,

"One can argu e t h a t t h e schools have f a l l e n down in t h e i r
meet th e s e m inimal o b j e c t i v e s ;

someone e l s e might q u e s t i o n th e

a b i l i t y o f t h e f r a m e r s o f these o b j e c t i v e s
expectations;

s till

task to

to p r o je c t

r e a l i s t i c minim al

a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n might be r a i s e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e

appropriateness o f d e fin in g m in im a l."

Rudman goes on t o s a y , " D a t a

such as th es e le a d s me t o co ncl ude t h a t th e o b j e c t i v e s measured d u r i n g
the 1973~7k academic y e a r were s i m p l y not minimal
10
level s . "

f o r t h e s e grade

Even though th e Michig an Depa rtme nt o f E d u c a t i o n has s t a t e d
that a l l

o f th e o b j e c t i v e s a r e m in im a l

students at

th e a p p r o p r i a t e grade l e v e l ,

e d u c a t o r s be p a r t i c u l a r l y

careful

states,

t h e y have s u g g es te d t h a t

when examining t h e i r

assessment t o r e v i e w th e o b j e c t i v e s
11
Items f o r soundness.

p o sition

and should be a c h i e v e d by a l l
local

r e s u l t s on

f o r a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s and the t e s t

The Department o f E d u c a ti o n has a l s o m o d i f i e d

t h e i r previous

r e g a r d i n g t h e assessment o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s .

The Department

"U n fortun ately,

the n a t u r e o f minimal o b j e c t i v e s was f r e q u e n t l y

misun de rstoo d d u r i n g th e l a s t

school

year.

The D ep ar tm e nt o f E d u c a t i o n

10
Rudman, H e r b e r t C . , "Between Us . . .
Pr i ncI pa I , V o l . L, No. 2 , A p r i l 19 7 k , p. I I .

",

M i c h i g a n E le m e n ta r y

11
M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , School and D i s t r i c t
O ct ob er 1973, p . 12.

Reports,

6

d i d not e x p e c t - based on e m p i r i c a l
be a t t a i n e d

by 90 t o

assessment.

d a t a - t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e s would

100 p e rc en t o f t h e S t a t e ' s

students

In th e 19 73 * 7^

In d e e d , a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e suggests t h a t a t t a i n m e n t

rates

12

would v a r y among t h e o b j e c t i v e s . "
This
actu ally

l a t e s t p o s i t i o n o f t h e M ic hi g an Department o f E d u c a t i o n

increases

position o f

th e need f o r f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n .

th e Department made i t c l e a r

o f M ic h ig a n were e x p e c t e d to a c h i e v e a l l
th e a p p r o p r i a t e gr ad e
rates w i l l

le v e l.

The p r e v i o u s

th a t a l 1 students

In t h e S t a t e

o f th e m inimal o b j e c t i v e s a t

The p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n

is

t h a t ac hi e ve m en t

in f a c t v a r y among t h e o b j e c t i v e s .

Research needs t o be conducted which w i l l
appropriateness o f

the minimal

s k ill

ob jec tive s.

i n d ic a t e the
Research shou ld t r y

t o answer such q u e s t i o n s as:

To what e x t e n t do t h e m inimal

ob jectives

in r e a d i n g r e f l e c t

consensus on th e p a r t o f cla ss ro om

te a c h e r s ?

To what e x t e n t do c la ss ro om t e a c h e r s a g r e e upon th e

o f th e o b j e c t i v e s as minimal?
objectives

re fle c t,

f o r the v a r i a t i o n

"what

re la tiv e

is to be t a u g h t ? "

What f a c t o r s may a c c o u n t

t o a t t a i n m e n t o f th e o b j e c t i v e s ?
is spending

l a r g e sums o f money d e v e l o p i n g and t e s t i n g o b j e c t i v e s .
a r e a l s o encouraged t o devel op o b j e c t i v e s .
little

tim e,

im po rta nc e

Do cl a s s ro o m t e a c h e r s a g r e e t h a t t h e s e

The M ic h ig a n Department o f E d u c a ti o n has and

spent

p e rf or m a nc e

Y et,

Local

d is tric ts

t h e Department has

money, o r e f f o r t on th e v a l i d a t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e s .

12
197W 5,

M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , O b j e c t i v e s and P roc ed ures
August 197*t. P. 3-

7

Thus,

i n f o r m a t i o n about th e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f o b j e c t i v e s

re la tiv e

to t e a c h e r s '

e x p e c t a t i o n s shou ld be a problem wo rthy o f r e s e a r c h .

In a d d i t i o n ,

th e f a c t

that

r e l a t i o n s h i p s may e x i s t between th e r a t e d

v a l u e o f o b j e c t i v e s and ac hi e ve m en t
p r o v i d e d a t a on a v a r i a b l e
y e t been s u f f i c i e n t l y

related

studied.

do t h e y v a r y s y s t e m a t i c a l l y

is

i m p o r t a n t because

it

c o u ld

t o s t u d e n t a c h ie ve m en t t h a t has not

I f attainm ent

re la tiv e

to the

r a t e s do in f a c t v a r y ,

Im portance t e a c h e r s p l a c e

on th e s e o b j e c t i v e s ?

Purpose o f th e Study

The purpose o f t h i s
t e a c h e r s v a l u e th e minimal

s tu dy

reading s k i l l s

Assessment Program, and ( 2 )
ment and t e a c h e r s

ratin gs

is t o d e t e r m i n e

(I)

t o what degree

o f th e M ic h ig a n

Educational

the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t a c h i e v e ­

(value)

p l a c e d on the r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s .

D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms

Reading O b j e c t i v e s :
o b jec tive s

N ineteen statements

O bjective
th at

School

(Reading):

C la s s lfIc a tio n s :

as

In th e Mic hi g an

Progress.

A d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e s k i l l s

shou ld be a t t a i n e d

D is tric t

Id e n tifie d

In r e a d i n g f o r f o u r t h gr ad e s t u d e n t s

Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l
Minimal

th a t are

In r e a d i n g

by most s t u d e n t s as soon as p o s s i b l e .
A system o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

t h e M i c h i g a n Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l

Progress.

used In

a

1.

M e t r o p o l i t a n Core C i t i e s :
c la s s ifie d
if

Communities a r e

as M e t r o p o l i t a n Core C i t i e s

t h e y meet a t

l e a s t one o f th e

fo llow ing c r i t e r i a :
a.

The community

is th e c e n t r a l

c ity

o f a M ic h ig a n S ta n da rd M e t r o p o l i t a n
S ta tis tic a l
b.

A re a ;

the community
the c e n t r a l

or

is an e n c l a v e w i t h i n

c i t y o f a M ic hi g an

S tan dar d M e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l
A re a ; or
c.

the community was p r e v i o u s l y c l a s s i ­
f i e d as a M e t r o p o l i t a n Core C i t y .

Ci t i e s :
if

Communities a r e c l a s s i f i e d

as C i t i e s

they have a p o p u l a t i o n o f 1 0 , 0 0 0 o r more

and have not been c l a s s i f i e d as a M e t r o p o l ita l
3.

Towns:
if

Core C i t y o r Urban F r i n g e .
Communities a r e c l a s s i f i e d

t h e y have a p o p u l a t i o n o f 2 , 5 0 0

9,999-

R ura l

comm un ities

large m i l i t a r y
also c la s s if ie d
4.

as Towns

Urban F r i n g e :

to

impacted by

1n s t a l l a t i o n s

n e ar by a r e

as Towns.

Communities a r e c l a s s i f i e d as

Urban F r i n g e

regardless o f t h e i r

t h e y meet a t

l e a s t one o f the f o l l o w i n g

cri te ria :

s ize ,

if

3

a.

t h e m a i l i n g address o f

th e community

fs a M e t r o p o l i t a n Core C i t y o r a C i t y
unless
b.

it

is on a RFD Ro u te ; o r

t h e community Is w i t h i n

ten m i l e s o f

t h e c e n t e r o f a M e t r o p o l i t a n Core
C ity ;
c.

or

th e community is w i t h i n

f i v e miles o f

the c e n t e r o f a C i t y .
5.

Rural:

Communities a r e c l a s s i f i e d as Rural

if

th e y have a p o p u l a t i o n o f

2,500 o r

if

o f a Town,

t h e i r ad dr es s
C ity ,

le s s than

I s an RFD Route

Urban F r i n g e , o r M e t r o p o l ­

i t a n C o r e , and they l i e o u t s i d e

th e p e r i m ­

e t e r d e f i n e d above under Urban F r i n g e .
O b je c tiv e Rating S c a le :

A system used t o r a t e

reading o b je c tiv e s

id e n tifie d

Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l

th e n i n e t e e n

in t h e M ic hi g an

Progress,

Rat i ng
5 ** Very

im portant,

c ritic a l,

or essential

U - Above a v e r a g e im p o rt a n c e
3 ** A ve ra ge

Im porta nce

2 * Below a v e r a g e
1 •
Classroom T e a c h e r :
in grad es

U nim portant,

I m p o rt a n c e
in ap p ro p riate, or

Those t e a c h e r s
1, 2 ,

o r 3.

in a school

irre le v a n t.

whose as si g nm en t

Is

10

Assumpttons

The v a l i d i t y o f t h i s

s tu dy

Is a f f e c t e d

by th e f o l l o w i n g

facto rs:
1.

The n a t u r e and v a l i d i t y o f th e m a j o r sources
o f d a t a which i n c l u d e :

Mic higa n E d u c a t i o n a l

Assessment Program, d a t a on a c h ie v e m e n t f o r
1973-7**.
2.

The responses t o t h e F i v e S ca le R a t i n g on
objectives
firs t,

by c la s s r o o m t e a c h e r s

second, and t h i r d as t r u e p e r c e p t i o n s

regarding the
3.

in grades

Im p o r t a n c e o f o b j e c t i v e s .

The f i n d i n g s o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between
ac hi ev em en t and t e a c h e r r a t i n g s

is viewed

as c o r r e l a t i v e and not a a u s a t .

k.

The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f School
(t)

M etropolitan

(*•) Urban F r i n g e ,

C or e,
(5)

(2 )

D is tric ts :

C itie s ,

( 3 ) Towns,

Rural as d e f i n e d

In the

1971—72 T h i r d R e p o r t o f th e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l
Assessment Program,
Education,

M ic h ig an D ep ar tm en t o f

Lansing, Michigan.

11

L f mi t a 11 on s

1.

Th ere w i l l

not be an a t t e m p t

other variables
2.

related

G en eralizatio ns w i l l

to control

*

t o a c h ie v e m e n t .

be l i m i t e d t o th e

p o p u l a t i o n o f Oakland County.

O b j e c t i v e s o f th e Study

This
1.

s tu dy has two m a jo r o b j e c t i v e s :
To d e t e r m i n e the v a l u e
p l a c e on the
gr ad e minimal

2.

To d e t e r m i n e

(ratin g )

Im po rta nce o f

th e f o u r t h

reading o b j e c t i v e s .
I f a re la tio n s h ip exists

between t e a c h e r s 1 r a t i n g s o f
minimal

teachers

th e

r e a d in g o b j e c t i v e s and s t u d e n t

ach i e v e m e n t .

A
attempt w i l l
selection o f

Many v a r i a b l e s have been c o r r e l a t e d w i t h a c h i e v e m e n t .
Mo
be made t o c o n t r o l th os e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s beyond random
t h e samp le.

12

Hypotheses t o be T e s te d

Hypothes i 5 J_
Classroom t e a c h e r s ag re e t h a t th e M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l
Assessment Program r e a d in g o b j e c t i v e s a r e m i n i m a l .

Hypothes i s I I
S e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c la s s ro o m t e a c h e r s w i l l
have no a f f e c t on th e v a lu e
t o th e mi nim al

(ratin g )

teachers give

reading o b je c t iv e s .

Hypothes i s I I I
There

is a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t achievement

on the M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l

Assessment Program

r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s and th e v a l u e

(ra tin g )

teachers

p l a c e on th e o b j e c t i v e s .

Hypothes i s IV
The v a l u e
w ill

(ra tin g )

t e a c h e r s p l a c e on th e o b j e c t i v e s

va ry among th e f i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f school

d is tric ts

represented

in the t o t a l

po pu latio n.

13

O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e Remainder o f t h e T h e s i s

The s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r o b l e m .
o b jectives o f

t h e study were s t a t e d

Its

I m p o r t a n c e , and

In C ha pt e r

I.

The a s s u m p t io n s ,

l i m i t a t i o n s , d e f i n i t i o n s , and t e s t a b l e hy po theses w e r e a l s o s t a t e d .
In C h a p t e r
problem Is

reviewed.

A chronological
Program;

II

It w ill

lite ra tu re

be d i v i d e d

r e l e v a n t t o th e

into the fo llo w in g s e c tio n s :

development o f t h e Mic higa n E d u c a t i o n a l

research

studies r e la t e d

the p e r t i n e n t

In o b j e c t i v e

based t e a c h i n g and m a s t e r y l e a r n i n g ;

t o performance based e d u c a t i o n ;

research

c o r r e l a t e s o f school p e r f o r m a n c e ; and r e s e a r c h on t h e
of c rite rio n

Ml

be made.

w i t h sample s e l e c t i o n ,
s ta tis tic s

t o be used

In C h a p t e r

a d e t a i l e d examination o f

Im plicatio ns

the research

Procedures and methodology w i l l

be p r e s e n t e d

d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e so ur ces o f d a t a , and t h e
In the a n a l y s i s o f th e d a t a .

IV th e d a ta a r e a n a l y z e d and C h a p t e r V w i l l

c o n s i s t o f a summary, c o n c l u s i o n s ,
research.

In the

r e f e r e n c e d measurement.

In C h a p t e r
de sig n w i l l

Assessment

and I m p l i c a t i o n s

fo r future

CHAPTER I I
RELATED LITERATURE

The M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l

Assessment Program was i n i t i a t e d

S t a t e Board o f E d u c a t i o n and was funded by the S t a t e
en actment o f P u b l i c Law 307 in A u g u s t ,

1969.

to p r o v i d e e d u c a t o r s and c i t i z e n s w i t h

inform ation

r e g a r d i n g th e s t a t u s
t h e y c o u l d make more

in th e S t a t e .

Th ree m a j o r purposes g u i d e d t h e de si g n and o p e r a t i o n o f
o rig in a l

assessment program.

inform ation

to s t a t e - l e v e l

basic s k i l l s
s im ila r

level

The t h r e e purposes w e r e :

o f attain m e n t,

(2)

providing

local

(3 ) p r o v i d i n g a l o n g i t u d i n a l
1
th e s t a t e as a w h o l e .

The D epartme nt o f E d u c a t i o n c o n t r a c t e d w i t h
Service

(ETS)

o f M ichigan's
items

fo r a battery o f

providing

d is tric ts

w ith

pictu re of s k ills

Educational

Testing

items which w er e a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a l l
2
f o u r t h and se ven th g r a d e s t u d e n t s .
The t e s t c o n s i s t e d o f

in f i v e a r e a s :

and m a t h e m a t i c s .

ra tio ,

1
H e r b e r t C.
Pr i nc i pa 1 , V o l . L . ,

test

vocabulary,

In a d d i t i o n ,

in two m ajo r a r e a s :
p u p iI/teac h e r

(I)

th e

government a g e n c ie s and t h e p u b l i c c o n c e r n i n g

i n f o r m a t i o n and

attainm ent w it h in

th ro u g h

The go al o f t h e program was

and pr o g re ss o f M i c h i g a n ' s p u b l i c sc ho o ts so t h a t
informed d e c i s i o n s about e d u c a t i o n

Legislatu re

by th e

(1 )

a ttitu d e

toward s c h o o l ,

reading,

t h e Department o f E d u c a t i o n c o l l e c t e d d a t a

D is tric t

Human Resources; w h ic h

included

av er ag e y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ,

percent o f

Rudman, "Be tween Us . .
The M i c h i g a n E le m e n t a r y
No. i , F e b r u a r y , 197**, P* 9*

2
Educational

English

Testing S e r v ic e ,
I*

Princeton,

New J e r s e y

15

t e a c h e r s w i t h Masters Degrees and a v e r a g e t e a c h e r s a l a r y ;
fin an cial
local

resumes; which

revenue pe r p u p i l ,

(2)

D is tric t

In c l u d e d s t a t e e q u a l i z e d v a l u a t i o n p e r p u p i l ,
K-12

In stru ctio n al

expense p e r p u p i l and t o t a l

o p e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s pe r p u p i l .
The r e s u l t s o f s t u d e n t a c h ie v e m e n t were p r e s e n t e d t o
d is tric ts

through p u b l i s h e d documents o f t h e Depa rtme nt o f E d u c a t i o n .

Each sc hool d i s t r i c t
building

local

level

r e c e i v e d sc or es

achievement.

composite ac hievement sc ores

for d i s t r ic t

In a d d i t i o n ,

each school

resp ective publics

local

school

a c h ie ve m en t and

d is tric t

f o r e v e r y school d i s t r i c t

Department o f E d u ca ti on a l s o encouraged
mun ic at e t o t h e i r

level

received

In M i c h i g a n .

d is tric ts

The

t o com­

the r e s u lts o f t h e i r d i s t r i c t ' s

ach i e v e m e n t .
The r e l e a s e o f ac hie vem en t s c o r e s through
m u n i c a t i o n and l o c a l

local

d is tric t

newspaper r e l e a s e s c r e a t e d a f u r o r ac ro ss

com­

the s t a te

about components o f t h e assessment program and c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l y s i s ac ro ss
d is tric ts

and between b u M d I n g s .

questions

regarding p a re n ta l

toward s c h o o l ;

Some p a r e n t s o b j e c t e d

to p a r t i c u l a r

s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t a t u s and s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e s

some school o f f i c i a l s

o b j e c t e d to th e c o m p a r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g

fo rm at used by newspapers and the r e l e a s e o f M ic h ig a n d i s t r i c t s '

sc or es

by the D e p a r tm e n t^ o f E d u c a t i o n .
The Department o f Ed u ca ti on
h e a r i n g s w i t h school o f f i c i a l s ,
cautions

In th e u t i l i z a t i o n

responded t o t h e c r i t i c i s m

p a r e n t s and by p u b l i s h i n g
3
o f assessment d a t a .

by h o l d i n g

reports o f p re-

Mi c h ig a n Dep ar tme nt o f E d u c a t i o n , T e c h n i c a l R e p o r ts ( 1 9 7 0 " 1 3 7 2 ) ;
Local D i s t r i c t R e p o r t s : E x p l a n a t o r y M a t e r i a l s 0 9 7 Q ~ l 9 f e ) ; I n d i v i d u a l
Pup 11 R e p o r ts : E x p l a n a t o r y M a t e r i a l s ( I 9 7 0 ~ T 9 7 2 J ; M i c h i g a n Educat t on a I
Assessment Program, L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n .

16

The Department o f E d u c a ti o n a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d a r e v i e w panel
o f e x p e r t s c o n s i s t i n g o f M ic h ig a n c la s s ro o m t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
u n i v e r s i t y p ro fe s s o r s , content area s p e c i a l i s t s ,

c o u n s e l o r s and a

k
psychologist.
changes

The panel was e s t a b l i s h e d

t o make s u g g e s t i o n s

for

in th e assessment program.
D u r in g t h e y e a r s

Assessment Program;

in divid ual

s o c io - e c o n o m lc s t a t u s
toward school

1969- 197 2 r e v i s i o n s w er e made In t h e M ic hi g an

(SES)

items we re changed o r d e l e t e d ,

responses were e l i m i n a t e d and t h e a t t i t u d e

s e c t i o n became an o p t i o n f o r

in 1972 m a j o r r e v i s i o n s
were made.

th e p u p i l

local

d is tric ts .

in th e f o r m a t o f th e assessment program

The assessment program became one component o f t h e S t a t e ' s

s i x s t e p A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model and t h e assessment t e s t was based on
c rite rio n

r e f e r e n c e d measures r a t h e r th a n norm r e f e r e n c e d me as ure s.

The S t a t e A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model was de vel op ed by t h e Department
o f E d u c a t i o n f o r t h e purpose o f p r o v i d i n g a process f o r
o f educational

services.

the

improvement

B a s ically,

t h e A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model may be
5
a p p l i e d t o any a s p e c t o f th e e d u c a t i o n a l e n t e r p r i s e In M i c h i g a n .
The model c o n s i s t s o f s i x s t e p s :
Education,

(2)

Common Goals f o r M ic hig an

P e r fo r m a n c e O b j e c t i v e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e g o a l s ,

Assessment o f e d u c a t i o n a l
(5)

(I)

ne ed s,

(3)

(*i) A n a l y s i s o f D e l i v e r y S ys te m s,

E v a l u a t i o n and T e s t I n q and (6)

RecomroendatIons f o r

Im provement.

k
M ic h ig a n Dep artme nt o f E d u c a t i o n , T e c h n i c a l
M i c h i g a n , 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 , p.

R e p o r t, Lansing,

5
M ic h ig a n E le m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l s A s s o c i a t i o n , " M i c h i g a n ' s
E d u c a t i o n a l A c c o u n t a b i l i t y M o d e l " , The M i c h i g a n E le m e n ta r y P r i n c i p a l ,
V o l . L, No. 2 , A p r i l 197**, p. 8 .

17

The H o d e l, o r process
applied a t
pupil

th e s t a t e

le v e l.

d is tric t

In t h e Model,

le v e l,

bu ilding

s t e p two o f t h e Model,

lev el

or Individual

P erformance O b j e c t i v e s and s t e p

Assessment.
The development o f p e rf or m a nc e o b j e c t i v e s

t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a common c o r e o f o b j e c t i v e s
tric t

Is d e si g ne d t o be

The M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment Program i s d i r e c t e d

toward f u l f i l l i n g
three,

le v e l,

im p lic it

b o u n d a r ie s and f o r wh ich a l l

Is based on t h e r a t i o n a l e

th a t transcends

sc ho o ls shou ld be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r

helping students a t t a i n .

The D e p a r t m e n t ' s p o s i t i o n

tives

they a re

do,

in f a c t ,

e x is t;

process and th e e f f e c t

Is

t h a t th e s e o b j e c ­

I d e n t i f i a b l e th r o u g h a r a t i o n a l
6
Is w o r t h w h i l e .

The reasons why th e Department moved toward o b j e c t i v e
tests

(c rite rio n

ca lls

f o r such o b j e c t i v e

referenced)

are:

f o r e d u c a t o r s because i t

(1)

tied d ir e c tly

c la rifie s

referenced

th e A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model s p e c i f i c a l l y

r e f e r e n c e d assessment;

pe rf o r m a n ce o b j e c t i v e s and t e s t s

o b jec tive

local d i s ­

(2)

t h e development o f

t o them is a u s e f u l

In stru ctio n al

In ten tio n s;

process

and (3 )

th e

r e f e r e n c e d t e s t d a t a a r e much more s p e c i f i c a n d ,

to teachers

In b e t t e r

r es p on d in g t o I n d i v i d u a l

he nc e , u s e f u l
7
student needs.

The e s t a b l I s h m e n t o f p e rf o r m a n ce o b j e c t i v e s and o b j e c t i v e
enced t e s t s

raises several

q u e s t i o n s wh ich need t o be a d d r e s s e d .

refer­
(I)

Do

6
M ic h ig a n Depa rtme nt o f E d u c a t i o n , An Assessment o f th e Michigan
A c c o u n t a b i l i t y S yst em , L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , May, 19 7 1* » P- 8 *
7
May,

M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n ,
197*», pp. 1 2 - 1 3 .

M ic hi g an A c c o u n t a b i l i t y System,

18

8
the o b j e c t i v e s

re fle c t

"consensus" on "what ought

t o be t a u g h t ? "

(2)

What e x p e c t a t i o n s sh ou ld be made r e g a r d i n g s t u d e n t achievement on t h e
perfor man ce o b j e c t i v e s ?

(3)

Do t h e o b j e c t i v e r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s measure

the a t t a i n m e n t o f

th e o b j e c t i v e s ?

achievement?

What

(5)

(k) What f a c t o r s account f o r s t u d e n t

f a c t o r s account f o r

the v a r i a t i o n

In s t u d e n t

achievement among th e o b j e c t i v e s ?
The e s t a b l i s h m e n t and development o f p e rf o r m a n c e o r b e h a v i o r a l
ob jectives

fo r students

o f education.

This

in e d u c a t i o n ,

in terest

increasing a t t e n t io n

increased a t t e n t i o n

assessment programs a t
a b ility

is r e c e i v i n g

th e n a t i o n a l
advancements

is a r e s u l t o f the emphasis on

and s t a t e

le v e l,

In e d u c a t i o n a l

h e lp in g teachers

fo r account­

tech no lo gy and t h e

"The purpose o f o b j e c t i v e s can be t h e i r v a l u e

i d e n t i f y more c l e a r l y ,

p rio r

to

o f changes which s h o u ld be promoted in l e a r n e r s .
tio nal

o b j e c t i v e s a r e n o t h i n g more than t h a t ,
9
i n t e n d e d changes in l e a r n e r s . "
T y l e r , who is known as " t h e

says,

the c a l l

in competency o r perfo rma nce based t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g ra m s .
Popham s a y s ,

of

In th e f i e l d

"My e x p e r i e n c e w i t h

in stru ctio n ,

In

the kin ds

Stat em ent s o f

in stru c­

convenient d e s c r ip tio n s

fa th e r o f behavioral o b j e c t i v e s , "

te a c h e r s has d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t th ey found t h e

8
M ic h ig a n D ep ar tm e nt o f E d u c a t i o n , "The C r i t e r i o n R e fe re n c e d T e s t :
Assessment Based on P r e d e t e r m i n e d O b j e c t i v e s " , M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n , V o l . *»1 ,
No. 9 , June, 19 7 2 , p. 3.
9
James W. Popham, " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Assessment o f M in im al
Competencies f o r O b j e c t 1v e s - O r i e n t e d T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n Progr am s", p r e s e n ­
t a t i o n t o th e American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Mew O r l e a n s ,
L o u i s i a n a , F e b r u a r y , 1973 , p. 3*

19

exercise o f

I d e n t i f y i n g and d e f i n i n g t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s

in

terms o f b e h a v i o r he lp e d them t o r e c o g n i z e more c l e a r l y what t h e y
10
expec ted t h e i r s t u d e n t s t o l e a r n . "
This
tic a tio n

in c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n

to o b je c tiv e s

I s n o t new, b u t t h e s o p h i s ­

In t h e i r use and s t r u c t u r e has ta k e n on new em ph as is .

In 1916

Boston t e a c h e r s were r e q u i r e d t o draw up a l i s t o f words t h a t a l l
should be a b l e t o s p e l l
English were s t a te d

by g r ad e e i g h t .

In a d d i t i o n ,

In v e r y p r e c i s e b e h a v i o r a l

students

requirements

terms and a l l

for

s t u d e n t s had
11

to s u c c e s s f u l l y e x h i b i t

th e s e b e h a v i o r s in o r d e r t o g r a d u a t e .
12
W o o d ru ff and K a p fe r
support the p o s it io n t h a t a t t e n t i o n

on o b j e c t i v e s
behavioral
In goal

I s n o t new.

outcomes.

The c u r r i c u l u m has always been d i r e c t e d toward

These outcomes have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been e x pr es s ed

s t a t e m e n t s th ro ug h s t a t e and l o c a l
They

focused

school board documents.

i n d i c a t e t h e d i r e c t i o n o f change toward more s p e c i f i c s t a t e ­

ments when t h e y say:
The r e c e n t r i g o r o u s movement toward p r e c i s e b e h a v i o r a l
o b j e c t i v e s was n o t I n i t i a l l y a movement t o s u b s t i t u t e b e h a v i o r s
fo r lea rn er goals.
Such l e a r n e r g o a l s w er e a l r e a d y b e h a v i o r s .
R a t h e r , t h e movement had one m a jo r t h r u s t - - t o s t a t e t h e

10

Kappan I n t e r v i e w , "The F a t h e r o f B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s C r i t i c i z e s
Them; An I n t e r v i e w w i t h Ralph T y l e r " , Phi D e l t a Kappan, V o l . LV, Mo. I ,
September, 1973* pp. 5 5 - 5 6 .
11
P e t e r W. A f r a s i a n and George F. Madaus, " C r l t e r I o n - r e f e r e n c e d
T e s t i n g In th e C la s sr oo m ", Measurement in E d u c a t i o n , V o l . 3* Mo. 4 , Hay
1972, p. 2 .
12

Asahel 0. W o o d ru ff and P h i l i p G. K a p f e r , " B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s
and Humanism in E d u c a t i o n : A Q u e s t i o n o f S p e c i f i c i t y " , E d u c a t l o n a l
T e c h n o lo g y , J a n u a ry 1972.

20

b e h a v i o r s p r e c i s e l y and in s p e c i f i c and c o n c r e t e form*
Th en ,
g i v e n such s t a t e m e n t s , th e i n t e n t was to t r a n s l a t e t h e b e h a v i o r a l
o b j e c t i v e s d i r e c t l y i n t o r e l e v a n t l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s , and t o
r e c o g n i z e l e a r n i n g when I t has o c c u r r e d . ’
Educational

o b j e c t i v e s have been I d e n t i f i e d

by s e v e r a l

and s e m i - o f f i c i a l

b o d i e s , n am el y,

higher educatio n,

th e American C ou nc il on E d u c a t i o n , and t h e E d u c a t i o n a l

P o licies

th e v a r i o u s P r e s i d e n t i a l

o ffic ia l

Commission o f the N a t i o n a l
In 1 9 M

E d u c a ti o n A s s o c i a t i o n .

t h e American C ou nc il on E d u c a t i o n l i s t e d o v e r 20 0 o b j e c t i v e s

which d e f i n e s t u d e n t b e h a v i o r .
by th e E d u c a t i o n a l

P o licies

S t a t e m e n t s o f o b j e c t i v e s w er e p r o v i d e d

Commission

in 193 8, and a c o m p l e t e d e t a i l e d

c o l l e c t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e s was an o u t g r o w t h o f
on Outcomes
for

commissions on

in E le m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n

th e se co n da ry

level

in

1957

in

1953.

th e M i d - C e n t u r y Committee
A s i m i l a r e f f o r t was made

.

The E i g h t - Y e a r S tu d y , d i r e c t e d by T y l e r

(193^-19^2)

published a

f i ve voIume r e p o r t , Apprai s i ng and Record Ing P rogr ess wh lch d e a I s w i t h
d e f i n i n g o b j e c t i v e s and e v a l u a t i o n

instrum ents.

Bloom' s Cogni 1 1ve Taxonomy o f E d u c a t 1onal
in

1956 and K r a t h w o h l ' s A f f e c t I v e Taxonomy o f

196b added to t h e g e n e r a l

in terest

f o r p r i m a r y school

Educat i o n a l

O b j e c t i ves in

in o b j e c t i v e s .

T h o r n d i k e ' s Psychology o f A r i t h m e t i c
o b jec tive s

O b j e c t 1ves was developed

l i s t e d more th a n 2 , 0 0 0

a r i t h m e t i c and P e n d le t o n

lis te d

nearly

13
W o o d r u f f and K a p f e r ,
P.

Educational

T e c h n o lo g y , J a n u a r y ,

1972,

53 .

lit
Eugene Smith and Ralph T y 1e r , ' A p p r a i s i n g and R e c o r d i n g Student
P r o g r e s s " , New Y o r k : H a r p e r ' s , 19^2, ( c i t i n g ) Phi D e l t a Kappan, September,
197 3, p. 5 6 .

21

15
3,000 o b je c tiv e s

f o r h i g h school

The N a t i o n a l
in te n s u b j e c t a r e a s

English.

Assessment program begun In 1969 l i s t s o b j e c t i v e s
t o be t e s t e d

In f o u r age g ro u ps .

Each o f t h e s t a t e

deve lo pe d assessment programs a r e a l s o based on t e s t i n g p r e d e t e r m i n e d
o b j e c t 1v e s .
Competency o r pe rf orma nce based t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n programs
have a l s o

l e d t o an i n c r e a s e d demand f o r d e f i n i n g b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s .

Rosner and Kay s t a t e ,

"T hroughout a l l

o f th e CBTE programs t h e r e has
16

been a s t r o n g fo cu s on i n s t r u c t i o n

t o s p e c i f i c s t u d e n t outcomes . . . "

Popham w r i t e s :
W i t h o u t q u e s t i o n t h e most i m p o r t a n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l
advance in America d u r i n g th e ) 9 6 0 ' s was a w id e s p r e a d
advocacy and in c r e a s e d use o f m ea s u r a b le i n s t r u c t i o n a l
ob ject i ves.
What marked t h e 1 9 6 0 ' s as un iq u e w i t h r e s p e c t t o
i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s was a c o a l e s c i n g o f e d u c a t i o n a l
s u p p o r t ; t h a t i s , t h e emergence o f a c r i t i c a l mass o f
a d v o c a te s who f o s t e r e d c l e a r l y e x p l i c a t e d g o a l s .
And In
pro m ot ing t h e use o f m ea s u r a b le i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s ,
t h e programmed I n s t r u c t i o n movement should r e c e i v e
prin cip al c r e d it.
In f a c t , n o t h i n g I l l u s t r a t e s t h i s q u i t e so w e l l as
Rob er t H a g e r ' s volume wh ich was o r i g i n a l l y e n t i t l e d
P r e p a r i ng O b j e c t i v e s f o r Programmed I n s t r u c t ion and
wh ich l a t e r became P r e p a r I n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s .
R a r e l y d u r i n g t h e h i s t o r y o f e d u c a t i o n has a book w i t h
f e w e r pages and more w h i t e space been as i n f l u e n t i a l

15
Kappan, "An I n t e r v i e w w l t h Ralph T y l e r " ,
September 1973, p . 56.

Phi

D e l t a Kappan,

16
Benjamin Rosner and P a t r i c i a M. Kay, " W i l l t h e Promise o f
C/PBTE be F u l f i l l e d ? " , Phi D e l t a Kappan, V o l . LV, No. 5, J a n u a r y 1971*,
p .

2 9 0 .

22

on the t h i n k i n g and p r a c t i c e o f American e d u c a t o r s .
Ma ge r' s
s i x t y - t w o page opus not o n l y c o n t a i n e d a v e r y r e a d a b l e
message* i t p r o v i d e d the r e a d e r w i t h s e v e r a l p r a c t i c a l
s k i l l s * s k i l l s which most t e a c h e r s d i d not po ssess.
The p r e s e n t emphasis on b e h a v i o r a l l y s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s has
resulted

in a p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f p u b l i s h e d o b j e c t i v e s

m aterials

and so ur ce s a v a i l a b l e

T h is

fo r o b jec tive s'

I n c r e a s e d emphasis on t h e

mance o b j e c t i v e s

in

in stru ctio n al

s e le c tio n .*

im portance o f

id e n tify in g p e rfo r­

d i d not d e v e l o p w i t h o u t c r i t i c i s m s .

Popham s t a t e s :
Among th e c r i t i c i s m s o f m e a s u r e a b le o b j e c t i v e s was the
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t r i g i d p r e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n would
tend t o redu ce th e f l e x i b i l i t y o f o u r e d u c a t i o n a l o f f e r i n g s .
More s i g n i f i c a n t , p e rh a p s , was th e c r i t i c i s m t h a t an emphasis
on b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s would draw e d u c a t o r s toward pedes­
t r i a n , more e a s i l y o p e r a t i o n a 1 i z e d o b j e c t i v e s r a t h e r than
high l e v e l , d i f f i c u l t to measure g o a l s .
Th er e were some
r e a d e r s who e r r o n e o u s l y assumed t h a t a propon ent o f m ea s ur ab le
o b j e c t i v e s on th e grounds t h a t t h e y were a s t ne quo non in any
r a t i o n a l p l a n o f I n s t r u c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n .
In c o n t r a s t ,
t h e r e was a sma’ l e r but v o ca l grou p ( E i s n e r * 1966) who co ntend ed
t h a t a heavy emphasis upon m e a s u r a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s
would* u l t i m a t e l y pr ov e d e t r i m e n t a l t o th e p r o g r e s s o f e d u c a t i o n , *

17
National

James Popham, " I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s ? 9 6 0 - l 9 7 0 " , J o u r n a 1
S o c i e t y f o r Programed I n s t r u c t i o n , V o l . I X , No. 6 , J u l y * t 9 7 0 ,

p.

*The Rand M c N a ll y Company's E le m e n ta r y S c i e n c e L e a r n in g by
I n v e s t i g a t i ng is r e p o r t e d based on a s y s t e m a t i c p l a n o f b e h a v i o r a l
ob jec tive s.
M i l t o n B r a d l e y Company's G o a l : Language Development i n c l u d e s
a l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e f o r each le s so n p l a n . T R e Z w e T g Company has pub­
l i s h e d 785 b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r m ath em ati cs i n s t r u c t i o n .
Harcourt
Brace J o v a n o v i c h I n c o r p o r a t e d a d v e r t i s e the 1973 S t a n f o r d t e s t as b e in g
based on c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s , and James Popham,as
D i r e c t o r o f th e I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s Exchange, C e n t e r f o r t h e Study
o f E v a l u a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , ts p r o v i d i n g a d i s s e m i n a t i o n
s e r v i c e by p r o v i d i n g o b j e c t i v e s and me as uri ng d e v i c e s t o a s s i s t school
pe rs o n n e l In t h e i r I n s t r u c t i o n a l and e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s .
18
Popham,

J o u r n a 1 : Nat I o n a l

Soc1e t y f o r Programed I n s t r u c t I o n , p .

7

23

C h a r l e s S il b e rm a n c r i t i c i z e d
in h i s book.
to

C risis

in stru ctio n al

in t h e C las sr oom .

te c h n o lo g y

wrong w i t h American e d u c a t i o n - th inking,

A dd itio nal
is l e v e l e d a t what
and a b i l i t i e s .
behaviors

He w r i t e s ,

"Indeed,

o b jectives
t h e approach

t h a t most r e s e a r c h e r s a r e f o l l o w i n g

on p r e c i s e , measurable b e h a v i o r a l

autonomous,

t h e use o f b e h a v i o r a l

te rm s)

is

lik e ly

(based

t o compound what

is

Its

f a i l u r e to develop s e n s i t i v e ,
1 ;
humane i n d i v i d u a l s . "

c r i t i c i s m against

the b e h av io ral

o b j e c t i v e movement

i s p e r c e i v e d t o be an ov er em ph a si s on complex s k i l l s

There a p p e a rs

to be emphasis on s p e c i f i c

reducing s p o n t a n e i t y , o r i g i n a l i t y ,

lea rn er

and c r e a t i v i t y

In t h e

c l a s s room.
A tkins w r ite s ,
b ehavioral
D irectin g

"R ivetin g

the t e a c h e r ’ s a t t e n t i o n

go als p r o v i d e s him w i t h b l i n d e r s
him to hundreds o f go al s

pe dag og ic s t y l e w i t h a c o n c o m i t a n t
Ebel
o b jec tive s

states several

t o a few

t h a t may l i m i t h i s

range.

lea ds

to a c o n f u s i n g , m e c h a n i c a l ,
20
loss o f d e s i r a b l e s p o n t a n e i t y . "

concerns a b ou t

th e use o f b e h a v i o r a l

in e d u c a t i o n :

F i r s t , th e d e f i n i t i o n o f b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s has
d i v e r s e meanings de p e n d in g on th e u s e r .
One c a n n o t speak
o r even t h i n k c l e a r l y about b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s w i t h o u t
d e f i n i n g which t y p e o f b e h a v i o r he has in mind.
Second,
b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s a r e l i m i t e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n wh ich aims
a t th e c u l t i v a t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l s .
A t h i r d problem

is

that of s p e c ify in g

th e b e h a v i o r a l

19
C h a r l e s E. S i l b e r m a n ,
Random House, 1970, p. 199-

C risis

in th e C la s s r o o m , New Yor k:

20
J . M. A t k i n s , " B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s in C u r r i c u l u m D e s ig n :
A C a u t i o n a r y N o t e " , The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r , May, 1968, p. 2 9 .

o b j e c t i v e In s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l ; t h e r e f o r e , t o i d e n t i f y
and s p e c i f y a l l b e h a v i o r s is an i m p o s s i b l e t a s k .
A f o u r t h prob lem I s s p e c i f y i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e
l e v e l o f s k i l l o r competence in t h e b e h a v i o r .
This
t a s k is a l s o d i f f i c u l t , and f r e q u e n t l y seems t o be
more t r o u b l e than f t I s l i k e l y t o be w o r t h .
Ebel goes on t o w r i t e :
Nor shou ld we I n s i s t t h a t th e s t a t e m e n t s be in
b e h a v i o r a l te r m s .
Our main bu s in e s s as te a c h e r s ts
d e v e l o p i n g t h e c o g n i t i v e r es o ur ce s o f o u r p u p i l s ,
n o t shaping t h e i r b e h a v i o r .
The g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f
t e a c h e r s a t a l l l e v e l s who f e e l no u r g e n t need to
w r it e out t h e i r o b je c tiv e s
in d e t a i l , and In terms
o f b e h a v i o r , a r e p r o b a b l y w i s e r on t h i s m a t t e r than
those who have e x h o r t e d them t o change t h e i r ways.
Too much o f th e c u r r e n t r e v e r e n c e f o r b e h a v i o r a l
o b j e c t i v e s ts a consequence o f n o t l o o k i n g c l o s e l y
enough a t t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s .
^
K Ib le r,

B a r k e r and M i l e s have summarized the c o n t r o v e r s y

s u r r o u n d i n g the use o f b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s
(I)

Can a l l

In to three m ajo r questions.

I m p o r t a n t outcomes o f e d u c a t i o n be d e f i n e d and measured

b ehaviorally?

(2)

Can p r e s p e c i f i c a t ton o f o b j e c t i v e s p r e v e n t te a c h e r s

from a c h i e v i n g o b j e c t i v e s wh ich might a r i s e u n e x p e c te d ly d u r i n g a course
of

in stru ctio n ?

(3) W i l l

more

t r i v i a l le a r n e r be hav iors, which

are

the

e a s i e s t t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e , r e c e i v e a g r e a t e r emphasis t h a n more
23
I m p o r t a n t e d u c a t i o n a l outcomes?

21
Phi

Robert L. E b e l , " B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s : A Clo se L o o k " ,
D e l t a Kappan, V o l . LI I , No. 3, November, 1970, p. 17 2.
22
Ebel,

Phi D e l t a Kappan, November,

197 0, p.

173*

23
Robert J . K i b l e r , L a r r y L. B a r k e r and David T . M i l e s ,
B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s and I n s t r u c t i o n , Boston: A l l y n and B ac on ,
197 i , pp. 23-2*4.

Inc,

25

Popham s a ys :
In s p * t e o f t h e v e r y f a v o r a b l e o v e r a l l r e a c t i o n t o
e x p l i c i t o b j e c t i v e s d u r i n g the p a s t f i v e t o ten y e a r s ,
a i jin f I c o l l e c t i o n o f d i s s i d e n t e d u c a t o r s has a r i s e n t o
oppose th e q u e s t f o r goal s p e c i f i c i t y .
The t r o u b l e w i t h
c r i t i c i s m s o f p r e c i s e o b j e c t i v e s I s n ’ t t h a t th e y a r e
completely w ith o u t fo undation.
As conceded e a r l i e r ,
t h e r e a r e p r o b a b l y eleme nts o f t r u t h In a l l o f them.
Y e t , when we a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o promote t h e w i d e - s c a l e
a d o p t i o n o f p r e c i s i o n In th e c l a s s r o o m , t h e r e Is t h e
danger t h a t many i n s t r u c t o r s w i l l use t h e comments
and o b j e c t i o n s o f th e s e few c r i t i c s as an excuse from
t h i n k i n g c l e a r l y ab ou t t h e i r g o a l s .
Any r i s k s we run
by having b e h a v i o r a l go a ls a r e m i n i s c u l e in c o n t r a s t w i t h
o u r c u r r e n t s t a t e o f c o n fu s io n r e g a r d i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l
In ten tion s.
The o b j e c t i o n s a g a i n s t b e h a v l o r a l l y s t a t e d
go a ls a r e not s t r o n g enough.
To s e c u r e a d r a m a t i c I n ­
c r e a s e in I n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s we must abandon
o u r customary p r a c t i c e s o f g o a l - s t a t i n g and t u r n t o a
framework o f p r e c i s i o n . ^**
While th e co ntroversy continues
behavioral

o b jectives,

he w r i t e s ,

" P e r fo rm a n c e o b j e c t i v e s a r e

something w i t h them.
or co ffin

lid s w i l l

a more r e a l i s t i c

r e g a r d i n g th e " f o r 1’ o r " a g a i n s t "
Id e a may be p r e s e n t e d by B u t t s ;
inanimate u n t i l

someone does

Whether p e rf or m a nc e o b j e c t i v e s a r e s p r i n g b o a r d s
25
depend on th e I n t e n t o f t h e u s e r . "

S ta t e m e n t s o f t h e M ic hi g an D e p a r tm e n t o f E d u c a t i o n ,
s e rie s of p u b lic a tio n s ,

lea ve s th e r e a d e r

th e D e p a r t m e n t ’ s p o s i t i o n .

throug h a

In a s t a t e o f c o n f u s i o n r e g a r d i n g

In a p u b l i c a t i o n , O b j e c t I v e - R e f e r e n c e d T e s t s :

A Summary, th e Dep artment s t a t e s , "These p e rf or m a nc e o b j e c t i v e s

represent

21*
W. James Popham, " P r o b i n g t h e V a l i d i t y o f Arguments A g a i n s t
B e h a v i o r a l G o a l s " , p a p er p r e s e n t e d t o t h e American E d u c a t i o n a l Research
M e e t i n g , C h ic a g o , I l l i n o i s , Fe br ua ry 7 - 1 0 , 1 9 6 8 , p. 12.
25
David P. B u t t s , "P erfo rm an ce O b j e c t i v e s Necess ary o r S u p e r f l u o u s " ,
p r e s e n t a t i o n t o The N a t i o n a l S ci e nc e A s s o c i a t i o n C o n v e n t i o n , D e t r o i t ,
M i c h i g a n , A p r i l 2 , 19 7 3 , p. 6.

26

s k ills

ne ce ss ar y f o r p r o f i c i e n c y

r e a d in g and m a th em at ic s a t th e
26
th e a p p r o p r i a t e grade l e v e l . "
The same p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t e s ,

end o f

" .

.

. th ese o b j e c t i v e s a r e

be a c q u i r e d by e v e r y

1972,

a June,

pe rf orma nce o b j e c t i v e s ,

that

minimal

ivt*rs

Reports p u b l i c a t i o n ,

the " o b je c tiv e s

(MEA)

by a l l

and th e N a t i o n a l

Michigan educators

Likewise,

f o r assessment purposes a r e

p r e p a r e d un d e r c o n t r a c t w i t h

and S t u f f lebeam s t a t e ,

objectives;

selected

t h e Department has

b e g in n in g f o u r t h and se ven th
29
in t h e S t a t e o f M i c h i g a n . "

In a re p o rt
Association

t h a t sh ou ld
27
th e end o f t h i r d o r s i x t h g r a d e . "
In

"The development o f
28
i d e n t i f i e s what ought t o be t a u g h t . "
in t h e

and shou ld be a t t a i n e d

q r a d i students

s k ills

the D ep ar tm e nt s t a t e s ,

1973*7^ School and D i s t r i c t
maintained

in t e n d e d t o be mi nim al

c h ild at

p u b lic atio n

in

and i t

the c l a i m

has not

"It

th e M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n

Ed u ca ti on A s s o c i a t i o n
is c e r t a i n

( N E A ) , House,

t h a t a consensus among

been r e a c h e d co n c e r n in g minimal

is d o u b t f u l

th at

that o b jec tio n s

suc h a consensus c o u ld

a r e minimal

p e rf o r m a n c e
be a c h i e v e d .

Is un fou nd ed, and t h e r e

26
A Nummary,

Mi c h ig a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , O b j e c t I v e - f t e f e r e n c e d T e s t :
L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , F a l l , 1973, p. 1.

27

M ic h ig a n
F-iil ,

1973,

P.

Department o f

Education,

O b j e c t i v e R ef e re n c ed T e s t ,

2.

28

M ic h ig a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , "Assessment Based on
p r e d e t e r m i ned O b j e c t i v e s " , M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n , V o l . I l l , No. 9 , J u n e ,
1 9 7 2 p. 3-

,

29
M ic h ig a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , School and D i s t r i c t R e p o r t s :
Ex p l a n a t o r y M a t e r i a l 19 73 “ 197l|, L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , (Sotober, l9?3~ p . 2 .

27
30
is c o n s i d e r a b l e reas on to b e l i e v e
Womer w r i t e s ,

" . . .

objectives a re

t r u l y minimal
31
personal e v a l u a t i o n . "

the o b je c tiv e s

a re not m i n i m a l / '

th e p r ej u dg m e nt t h a t a i l

o f th e assessment

s h o u l d no t be a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t c a r e f u l

Rudman s a y s :
One can a r g u e t h a t th e s c h o o l s have f a l l e n down in t h e i r
task to meet th e s e minimal o b j e c t i v e s ; someone e l s e m ig h t
q u e s t io n t h e a b i l i t y o f th e fr a m e r s o f th e s e o b j e c t i v e s t o
p r o j e c t r e a l i s t i c minimal e x p e c t a t i o n s ; s t i l l a n o t h e r qu es­
t i o n mi gh t be r a i s e d c o n c e r n i n g th e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f
defining m inim al.
Data such as th e s e leads me t o c o n c l u d e
t h a t the o b j e c t i v e s measured d u r i n g th e I 9 7 3 ” 7*+ academic
y e ar were s i m p l y not m inimal f o r th es e gr ad e l e v e l s . ^2
In a 197*+ p u b l i c a t i o n

t h e Dep artment o f E d u c a t i o n s t a t e s ,

r ead ing and m a t h e m a t ic s o b j e c t i v e s
have most s t u d e n t s a t t a i n ;

a r e ones f o r wh ich

a m in im a l

studencs s h o u ld be a b l e to a t t a i n

is d e s i r a b l e

to

t h e r e f o r e , I s one wh ich
33
as soon as p o s s i b l e . "

In r e s p o n s e to the c o n t r a c t e d
o f Education a d m i t s to c o n f u s i o n

it

"The

o b je c tiv e ,

HEA, NEA r e p o r t s

t h e D epartme nt

r e g a r d i n g th e d e f i n i t i o n o f minimal

performance o b j e c t i v e s .

30
E r n e s t R. House, W e n d e l 1 R i v e r s and D a n i e l L. S t u f f l e b e a m ,
"An Assessment o f the Mic higan A c c o u n t a b i l i t y S yst em ", Phi D e l t a Kappan,
V o l . LV, Mo. 1 0 , June , 197*+, pp. 66*+-665.
31
H ou se ,
A cc o u n tab ility ",

R i v e r s and S t u f f I e b e a m , " A n Assessment o f M ic h ig a n
Phi D e l t a Kappan, June, 197*+, P . 6 6 5 .

32
H e r b e r t C. Rudman, "Be tween Us . . . " ,
P r i n c i p a l , V o l . L , No. 2, A p r i l , 197*+, p. 11.

M i c h i g a n E le m e n t a r y

33
M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , O b j e c t i v e s
197*t-1975, L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , A u g u s t , 197*+, p . 3.

and P roced ure s

28

The Department a g r e e s t h a t t h e r e I s c o n f u s i o n o v e r
t h e term " m i n i m a l . "
On th e one hand, a minimal o b j e c ­
t i v e might be th o u g h t o f as r e f l e c t i n g o n l y what s t u d e n t s
can do now as opposed t o what is d e s i r a b l e f o r s t u d e n t s
t o be a b l e t o do w i t h o u t r ega rd t o w h e t h e r o r not th e y
can do i t now"
The f o r m e r a e ^ i n l t i o n assumes t h e s t a t u s
quo t o be the c r i t e r i o n o f success f o r an o b j e c t i v e
whereas th e l a t t e r d e f i n i t i o n en co u rage s one t o e s t a b ­
l i s h a c r i t e r i o n I n d e p e n d e n t l y and a p r i o r i .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , many c i t i z e n s and e d u c a t o r s h o l d t h e
e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e Department f u l l y e x p e c t e d and,
in f a c t , knew t h a t t h e minimal o b j e c t i v e s would be
a t t a i n e d by a l m o s t a l l s t u d e n t s d u r i n g th e 1973-197**
as sessm ent.
T h i s w a s , however, n o t t h e c a s e .
The
Department e x p e c t e d th e o b j e c t i v e s n o t t o be a t t a i n e d
by most o f th e s t u d e n t s l a s t f a l 1 b u t t o be w o rt h y
o f at ta in m e nt ^ as soon as p o s s i b l e (assuming th e
o b j e c t i v e s wer e n o t changed in t h e r e v i e w p r o c e s s )
as a r e s u l t o f improved i n s t r u c t i o n .
The whole i s s u e reduces I t s e l f t o one o f w h e th e r
o r not t h e r e e x i s t s a common c o r e o f o b j e c t i v e s t h a t
t r a n s c e n d l o c a l d i s t r i c t b o u n d a r ie s and f o r which a l l
s c h o o ls should be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s
a tta in .
The D e p a r t m e n t ’ s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t these
o b j e c t i v e s do In f a c t e x i s t , t h a t t h e y a r e i d e n t i f i ­
a b l e through a r a t i o n a l p r o c e s s , and t h a t th e e f f o r t
i s w o r t h w h i l e " 3**
Ano ther c r i t i c i s m about the p e r f o r m a n c e o b j e c t i v e s s e l e c t e d
f o r assessment

in M i c h i g a n

Is made in t h e MEA, NEA r e p o r t .

The w r i t e r s

sta t e ;
On ly a r e l a t i v e l y few persons have been i n v o l v e d
in d e v e l o p i n g and c h o o s in g the o b j e c t i v e s .
Sampling
p r o c e d u re s have n o t g u a r a n t e e d t h a t t h e s e persons a r e
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n o f persons
who a r e concerned w i t h e d u c a t i o n in M i c h i g a n .
More­
o v e r , t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d to o u r pa n e l i n d i c a t e d t h a t
t h e o b j e c t i v e s t h a t were chosen do n o t r e p r e s e n t
consensual c h o i c e s o f even the s m al l group o f persons

3**
M ic h ig a n D e p a r tm e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , An Assessment o f the
M ic h ig a n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y S yst em , L a n s i n g , Mic hT ga n , May, 197**, pp.

7“ 8 .

29

35
who were

involved

In th e de velopment o f o b j e c t i v e s .

The M ic h ig a n Department o f Ed u ca ti on

responded to t h i s c r i t i c i s m

by s t a t i n g :
The Department ad m it s t h a t I t d i d not p o l l each o f
the s t a t e ' s 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 p r o f e s s i o n a l te a c h e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e
pe rf or ma nc e o b j e c t i v e s and, t o t h a t e x t e n t , d i d n o t
produce a co nsensus.
However, t h e pe rf orma nce o b j e c t i v e s
were not de v e lo p e d in th e d a r k un de r a bushel b a s k e t b u t
w e r e , I n s t e a d , de ve lo pe d w i t h th e a s s i s t a n c e o f hundreds
o f t e a c h e r s , c u r r i c u l u m s p e c i a l i s t s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
F u r t h e r m o r e , each s e t o f o b j e c t i v e s was r e v ie w e d
and ap proved by a panel o f e d u c a t o r s , c i t i z e n s and
s t u d e n t s , and by th e C ou nc il on E le m e n ta r y and Secon­
d a ry E d u c a t i o n b e f o r e b e in g recommended t o th e S t a t e
Board o f E d u c a t i o n .
Even s o , t h e Department r e c o g ­
n i z e s t h a t t h e pe rf or ma nc e o b j e c t i v e s shou ld n o t be
c o n s i d e r e d p e r f e c t e d a t t h i s p o i n t but s u b j e c t t o
f u r t h e r r e v i e w and r e v i s i o n .
In f a c t , the D ep ar tm e nt
is a c t i v e l y e n c o u r a g in g l o c a l e d u c a t o r s t o a n a l y z e
the o b j e c t i v e s and sh ar e t h e i r comments w i t h t h e
Department's I n s t r u c t i o n a l s p e c i a l i s t s .
A d d itio n a lly ,
c o n t r a c t s have been issued t o t h e M ic h ig a n C o u n c i l
o f Te ac h er s o f Ma the ma tic s and t o the M ic h ig a n Reading
A s s o c i a t i o n t o r e v i e w th e r e s u l t s o f th e 1973~197*i
e d u c a t i o n a l assessment and th e o r i g i n a l p e r f o r m a n c e
o b j e c t i v e s and recommend changes wh ich might be used
t o improve t h e q u a ! i t y o f th e o b j e c t i v e s and t h e
assessment p r o g r a m . 3°
It
Educational
th eir

is ,

t h e r e f o r e , apparent

th a t controversy e x is t s

In th e M i c h i g a n

Assessment Program r e g a r d i n g the s e l e c t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e s

approp riaten ess.

Unle ss t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y

Is

resolved,

and

performance

35
House,
A cc o u n tab ility ",

R i v e r s and S t u f f l e b e a m ,
Phi D e l t a Kappan, June,

"An Assessment o f M ic h ig a n
197*1, pp. 66*1-665.

36
M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , Assessment o f th e A c c o u n t ab i 1 1t y S yst em , L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , May, 197*1, pp. 6 - 7 .

30

o b jectives

in t h e assessment program w i l l

or " c o f f i n

l i d s " depending on t h e

B e lt w r i t e s ,

be viewed as " s p r i n g b o a r d s ”

I n t e n t o f th e u s e r .

"Only those o b j e c t i v e s

t h a t have t h e commitment

and concern o f t h e p r i n c i p a l and f a c u l t y w i l l
p l i s h m e n t d u r i n g t h e academic y e a r .
by th e f a c u l t y and t h e p r i n c i p a l w i l l
37
f i c i a l r e s u l t s f o r a n y o n e ."
T y le r says,

have a chance f o r accom­

Imposed o b j e c t i v e s not a c c e p t e d
most l i k e l y n o t r e s u l t

In b e n e -

"U nl ess the t e a c h e r un de rst an d s th e o b j e c t i v e s ,

he is supposed t o be h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s a t t a i n ,
t h a t s t u d e n t s can a t t a i n
38
a t t e n t i o n to t h e m . "

them,

it

and u n l e s s he b e l i e v e s

is u n l i k e l y t h a t he w i l l

The de vel opm en t o f p e rf or m a nc e o b j e c t i v e s

give real

In th e M ic h ig a n

E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment Program n e c e s s i t a t e d a change in t h e t y p e o f
t e s t p r e v i o u s l y used by the Department o f E d u c a t i o n .
During t h e summer o f 1971

th e Department c o n t r a c t e d w i t h

f o u r M ic hi g an school

d is tric ts

Assessment Program.

Each l o c a l d i s t r i c t

who were t r a i n e d
M c G r a w - H il l
w ritin g

test

to w r it e te s t

items f o r t h e M ic h ig a n

s e l e c t e d a team o f w r i t e r s

In t e s t w r i t i n g p r o c e d u re s by C a l i f o r n i a T e s t B ur ea u,

(CTB).

Each w r i t i n g

team was g i v e n t h e assig nment o f

items t o p r e d e t e r m i n e d o b j e c t i v e s

in r e a d i n g and m a th e m a ti c s .

37
T e r r e l H. B e l l , " A c c o u n t i n g f o r What Y o u n g s te r s L e a r n " , American
A s s o c i a t i o n o f School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , 105th Annual C o n v e n t i o n , San
F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a , March 17“ 2 1 , 19 73, P- 3*
38
Kappan, "An I n t e r v i e w w i t h Ralph T y l e r " ,
September 1973, p . 5 6 .

Phi

D e l t a Kappan,

The t e s t

items developed and s e l e c t e d would r e p l a c e th e p r e v i o u s t e s t

Items used In Michigan Assessment and d a t a would be r e p o r t e d as c r i t e r l
r e f e r e n c e d r a t h e r than as n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d .
The Michigan D ep ar tm e nt o f E d u c a t i o n s t a t e s :
The new o b j e c t t v e - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s a r e desi gn ed t o
r e v e a l s p e c i f i c s k i l l s t h a t s t u d e n ts have o r have n o t
a tta in e d .
Th is i s done by c o n s t r u c t i n g b r i e f t e s t s each
o f w h ic h r e l i a b l y measure a s i n g l e l e a r n e r o b j e c t I v e . ’ ”
An o b j e c t i v e - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t i s one t h a t c o n t a i n s
items which a r e w r i t t e n t o measure p a r t i c u l a r p e r f o r ­
mance o b j e c t i ves .
T h i s t e s t d i f f e r s from s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s in one
i m p o r t a n t way.
S ta n d a rd ize d , or norm -referenced
t e s t s , a r e used t o d e t e r m i n e th e p e r f o r m a n c e o f a
s t u d e n t In r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r s t u d e n t ' s perfor ma nce
on t h e t e s t .
O b j e c t 1v e - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s do n o t c o n t a i n th es e
c o m p ar is o ns .
No a t t e m p t ts made t o r a n k o r d e r t h e
s t u d e n t s , i . e . , s e p a r a t e t h e s t u d e n t s from t h e h i g h e s t
s c o r i n g or best t o t h e lo west s c o r i n g o r t h e w o r s t .
I n s t e a d , a s t u d e n t ' s pe rf orm an ce I s examined on each
o b j e c t i v e the t e s t m ea s ur es .
Making a d i s t i n c t i o n between n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d and c r i t e r i o n referenced te s ts ,

G laser says:

When n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d measures a r e us e d , a
p a r t i c u l a r s t u d e n t ' s ac hievement I s e v a l u a t e d in
terms o f a comparison between h t s p e r f o r m a n c e and
t h e performa nce o f o t h e r members o f t h e g r o u p .
Such measures need p r o v i d e l i t t l e o r no i n f o r m a t i o n
a b o u t th e degree o f p r o f i c i e n c y e x h i b i t e d by th e
t e s t e d be ha v io rs in terms o f what t h e I n d i v i d u a l
can do.
They t e l l t h a t one s t u d e n t I s more o r

39
Lansing,

Michig an D e p a r tm e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , O b j e c t i v e s and P r o c e d u r e s ,
M i c h i g a n , A u g u s t , 197 3, p. 3*

ko
Fall,

Michigan D e p a r tm e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , O b j e c t i v e R e f e r e n c e d T e s t ,
19 7 3 , P. Z.

less p r o f i c i e n t than a n o t h e r , b u t do not t e l l how
p r o f i c i e n t e i t h e r o f them is w i t h r e s p e c t t o the
su bject m atte r tasks In vo lv ed . ^
A n o th e r d i s t i n c t i o n made by G l a s e r
of

Items s e l e c t e d f o r t e s t i n g ;

is r e l a t e d t o t h e purposes

he w r i t e s :

. . . Items most s u i t a b l e f o r m ea s ur in g i n d i v i d u a l
d i f f e r e n c e s In achie vem en t a r e t h o s e which w i l l
d i f f e r e n t i a t e among I n d i v i d u a l s a l l exposed t o t h e
same t r e a t m e n t v a r i a b l e , w h i l e Items most s u i t a b l e
f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between groups a r e those which
a r e most l i k e l y t o I n d i c a t e t h a t a g i v e n amou nt.or
k i n d o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r e a t m e n t was e f f e c t i v e .
A l r a s t a n and Madaus I n d i c a t e t h a t
and c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d

th e d i s t i n c t i o n

between norm

t e s t s a r e n o t new by c i t i n g T h o r n d i k e .

In 1918

T h o r n d ik e w r o t e :
T h er e a r e two somewhat d i s t i n c t groups o f edu­
c a t i o n a l measurements: one . . . asks p r i m a r i l y
how w e l l a p u p i l pe rf orms a c e r t a i n u n i f o r m t a s k ;
th e o t h e r . . . asks p r i m a r i l y how h a rd a t a s k a
p u p i l can p e r f o r m w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l p e r f e c t i o n , o r
w i t h some o t h e r s p e c i f i e d d e g r ee o f su cce ss .
The
f o rm e r a r e a l l i e d t o th e s o - c a l l e d method o f
average e r r o r o f the p s ych o lo g is ts ( n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d ) ;
t h e l a t t e r , t o what used t o be c a l l e d th e method
o f " r i g h t and wrong cases ( c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d ) . "
Each o f th e s e groups o f methods has I t s advan­
t a g e s , and each d e se r ve s e x t e n s i o n and r e f i n e m e n t
though th e l a t t e r seems t o r e p r e s e n t t h e type
which w i l l p r e v a i l I f e d u c a t i o n f o l l o w s th e
c o u r se o f development o f th e p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s .

41
Robert G l a s e r , " I n s t r u c t i o n a l Technology and t h e Measurement
o f L e a r n i n g " , American P s y c h o l o g i s t , V o l . 18, No, 8 , A u g u s t , 1963, p. 520.
42
R ob ert G l a s e r , American P s y c h o l o g i s t , August,

1 9 6 3 , p . 520.

43
A i r a s f a n and Madaus, Measurement In E d u c a t i o n , May, 1972,
p. 2 , ( c i t i n g ) E. L. T h o r n d i k e , S e v e n t e e n t h Yearbook o f t h e N a t i o n a l
S o c i e t y f o r t h e Study o f Edu ca ti on ^ 19 1 8 .

A i r a s T a n and Madaus suggest f o u r reasons f o r an I n c r e a s i n g need
and i n t e r e s t

In c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d measurement.

F i r s t , t h e r e has been a gro w ing c r i t i c i s m o f
t e s t i n g , th e focus o f wh ich has been on s t a n d a r d ­
i z e d t e s t s o f ac hi ev em en t and a b i l i t y .
A second f a c t o r , c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the f i r s t ,
is t h e gro w ing c o n t r o v e r s y s u r r o u n d i n g g r ad es .
A t h i r d f a c t o r g e n e r a t i n g I n t e r e s t in c r i t e r i o n r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s has been th e g r o w th o f the I n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l t e c h n o l o g y movement.
In s tru c tio n a l tech­
n o l o g i s t s soon r e a l i z e d t h a t n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s
d i d n o t meet t h e i r needs in e v a l u a t i n g e i t h e r
i n d i v i d u a l pe rf or ma nc e o f th e e f f i c a c y o f a l t e r ­
native In struction al s tra te g ie s .
A f o u r t h f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g t o th e p r e s e n t
i n t e r e s t In c r i t e r I o n - r e f e r e n c e d measurement Is
th e growing b e l i e f on t h e p a r t o f many ed uc a to r s
t h a t al 1 o r at_ 1e a s t most s t u d e n t s can l e a r n ,
b e n e f i t fr om , o r be he lp e d to a c h i e v e competency
in most s u b j e c t a r e a s . ^
Popham s a y s , ' V h a t needs t o be l a i d
notion

to r e s t a t

th a t the c o n s tru c tio n o f o b je c t iv e - r e f e r e n c e d

d ifferen t

th is

tests

from th e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s ;

Popham sugg ests t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

te sts .

is t h e

Is r e a l l y
It

ts n o t . 11

psychometric p ro p e rtie s

a p p l i e d t o n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s may n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e
stru ctio n of c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d

point

f o r th e con­

He s t a t e s :

kk
A i r a s i a n and Madaus, Measurement

Popham, C r i t e r i o n Me asu re me nt, p.

in E d u c a t i o n , May,

1972, p.

19.

Rudman, M ic h ig a n E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l , A p r i l ,

197^* P* 11-

2,

31*

The b a s ic d i f f e r e n c e between Item c o n s t r u c t i o n In
n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d and c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d frameworks is
a m a t t e r o f s e t on the p a r t o f th e item w r i t e r .
Most i m p o r t a n t , when a w r i t e r c o n s t r u c t s Items f o r
a n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t , he wants v a r i a b i l i t y an d, as
a consequence, makes a l l s o r t s o f c o n c e s s i o n s , some­
times s u b t l e , sometimes o b v i o u s , t o promote v a r i a n t
scores.
The c r I t e r l o n - r e f e r e n c e d ite m w r i t e r i s guide d by
a n o t h e r g o a l . His c h i e f r u l e is t o make s u re th e item
is an a c c u r a t e r e f l e c t i o n o f th e c r i t e r i o n b e h a v i o r .
Th is r a t h e r fundamental d i f f e r e n c e in s e t on th e p a r t
o f c r I t e r I o n - r e f e r e n c e d and n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d Item
w r i t e r can c l e a r l y c o n t r i b u t e t o d i f f e r e n c e s in th e
r e s u l t ing i tems,
In d e a l i n g w i t h

th e t r a d i t i o n a l

psychometric p r o p e r t i e s ,

wr i t e s :
fhe iss ue o f v a r i a b i l i t y is a t the c o r e o f th e
d i f f e r e n c e between n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d and c r i t e r i o n referenced te s t s .
W it h c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s , v a r i a b i l i t y is
irre le v a n t.
The meaning o f th e score is n o t depen­
dent on comparison w i t h o t h e r s c o r e s ; i t f lo w s
d i r e c t l y from t h e c o n n e c t i o n between the Items and
the c r i t e r 1o n . ^
tn terms o f

th e r e l i a b i l i t y

o f m easures,

Popham w r i t e s :

Now i t is o b v io u s t h a t a c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t
sh ou ld be I n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t .
i f we a r g u e t h a t the
items a r e t i e d to a c r i t e r i o n , then c e r t a i n l y th e Items
shou ld be q u i t e s i m i l a r in terms o f what t h e y a r e
m e a s u r in g .
But a l t h o u g h i t may be ob vio us t h a t a
c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t should be i n t e r n a l l y con­
s i s t e n t , i t is n o t ob vio us how t o assess th e i n t e r n a l
consistency.
The c l a s s i c a l pr o c ed u re s a r e n o t a p p r o ­
p ria te .
T h is is t r u e because th ey a r e dependent on
s c or e v a r i a b i l i t y .
.

.

. th os e w i s h i n g to

improve c r i t e r I o n - r e f e r e n c e d

*♦7

Popham, C r I t e r ion Me as u re me nt , p.

23.

Popham

35

t e s t s should not be dismayed I f th e t e s t , because
o f l i t t l e sc or e v a r i a n c e , y i e l d s a low I n t e r n a l
consistency e s tim a te .
I t I s r e a l l y unwise t o a p p l y
such e s t i m a t e s .
A n o th e r pr ob lem a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d
the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c r i t e r i o n

testin g

is

fo r mastery.

The c o n c e p t u a l model o f c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d
measurement r e s t s upon th e prem is e t h a t t h i s
method o f e v a l u a t i o n w i l l p r o v i d e v a l i d ev id e n c e
regarding a s tu d e n t's le a rn in g o f r e le v a n t s k i l l s
o r concepts.
Complete o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f
such m a s t e r y , t h e r e f o r e , depends upon th e e s t a b ­
li s h m e n t o f an a b s o l u t e pe rf orma nce s t a n d a r d
a g a i n s t which t h e adequacy o f each s t u d e n t ' s
l e a r n i n g may be wei ghed and j u d g e d .
In th e absence o f any c o n c r e t e I n f o r m a t i o n
r e g a r d i n g s t u d e n t e n t e r i n g b e h a v i o r , o r th e
h i e r a r c h y o f p r o b a b l e r e sp on s es , raw I n t u i t i o n
may be th e o n l y a v a i l a b l e gu ide t o an i n i t i a l
s e le c tio n o f the c r i t e r i o n value.
U n t il a sy ste m a tic set o f ru le s a p p lic a b le to a
broad spectrum o f c u r r i c u l a Is d e v e l o p e d , th e
pro c es s o f c r i t e r i o n s e l e c t i o n w i l l r e q u i r e t e a c h e r
I n s i g h t and j u d g m e n t .
°
A f r a s i a n and Madaus say:
I t is in th e a r e a o f s e t t i n g s t a n d a r d s , be th e y
f o r I n d i v i d u a l o b j e c t i v e s o r s e ts o f o b j e c t i v e s ,
t h a t c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d measurement is most in
need o f r e s e a r c h .
Thus f a r , most s t a n d a r d s have
been a r r i v e d a t by a r b i t r a r y d e c i s i o n s on t h e
p a r t o f t e a c h e r s and r e s e a r c h e r s .
T h e r e is
e v i d e n c e t h a t s t a n d a r d s s e t in th e a r e a o f 80 t o
90 percent p r o f i c i e n c y a r e most r e a l i s t i c and
m e a n in g fu l . ■*

1*8
Popham,

C r I t e r I o n Measu re ment, pp.

K ib ler,

B e h a v Io r a 1 O b j e c t Iv e s and

26-28.

**9

In stru ctio n , p.

131.

50
A f r a s i a n and Madaus, Measurement

In E d u c a t I o n , May,

1972 , p . 2 .

36

A!k i n w r 1t e s :
D e s p it e t h e g r e a t appe al o f the m as te ry c o n c e p t ,
however, s e v e r a l problems remain u n r e s o l v e d .
Most
i m p o r t a n t , p r e s e n t p s y c h o m e t r ic s and t h e o r i e s o f
m ast er y l e a r n i n g have not p r o v i d e d a means o f e s t a b ­
l i s h i n g an e d u c a t i o n a l l y u s e f u l d e f i n i t i o n o f m a s t e r y .
A r b i t r a r y p e rf o r m a n ce s t a n d a r d s such as 85 p e r c e n t
c o r r e c t responses a r e common, but r a r e l y i s t h e r e any
s a t i s f a c t o r y c r i t e r i o n f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a mastery
standard.
Even Bloom, who a r d e n t l y s u p p o r ts t e a c h i n g
to m a s t e r y , conceded t h a t , " W h i l e we would recommend
t h e use o f a b s o l u t e s t a n d a r d s c a r e f u l l y worked o u t
f o r a s u b j e c t , we r e c o g n i z e th e d i f f i c u l t y o f
a r r i v i n g a t such s t a n d a r d s and In the absence o f
a b s o l u t e c r i t e r i a recommend s t a n d a r d s based on
previous e x p e r ! en c e .
Central
d efin ing
of

the

t o th e problem a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d e f i n i n g m a s t e r y ,

level

items ne c e s s a ry

of attain m e n t,

th at

is

is the problem o f d e c i d i n g t h e number

to t e s t a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t i v e .

Skager s t a t e s :
However m a s t e r y i t s e l f is d e f i n e d , the q u e s t i o n
r e m a in s , how many items shou ld be in c l u d e d on th e
t e s t so as t o a s s u r e w i t h i n c e r t a i n l i m i t s t h a t th e
l e a r n e r ( o r l e a r n e r s ) would o b t a i n th e same scor e
on a n o t h e r sample o f items from th e same pool 7
I f the t e s t i n c o r p o r a t e s p r o d u c t i o n type it e m s ,
where g u e ss in g Is an Im p r ob ab le o r even i m p o s s i b l e
b a s i s f o r a c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e , few er items a r e r e ­
quired.
Yet i f one looks a t th e l i t e r a t u r e which
has begun t o a c c u m u l a te around the t o p i c , i t is
q u i t e a p p a r e n t t h a t the model o f the t r a d i t i o n a l
m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t ite m Is t h e o n l y one b e in g
considered.
T h i s seems o d d , s i n c e a v a l i d a n a l y s i s
o f v i r t u a l l y any m ajo r school c o n t e n t domain w i l l
produce many p e rf or m a nc e o b j e c t i v e s which r e q u i r e
th e l e a r n e r t o g e n e r a t e a respon se r a t h e r th an t o

51
M a rv in C. A l k i n , " C r i t e r i o n - R e f e r e n c e d Measurement and O t h e r
Such Terms", Problems in C r i t e r i o n - R e f e r e n c e d M e as u re m e nt , CSE Monograph
S e r i e s tn E v a l u a t i o n , No. 3» Los A n g e l e s , 197^, pp. 1 0 - 1 1 .

37

52
s e l e c t one from among a s e t o f a l t e r n a t i v e s .
Popham s t a t e s
measurement a t

th e problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d

the present time:

A c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f a t t e n t i o n has r e c e n t l y
been g i v e n t o t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d
measures in c o n t r a s t t o more t r a d i t i o n a l n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d
ap pr oa c he s.
T h i s a t t e n t i o n has ex tended beyond th e
e t h e r e a l realms o f th e p s y c h o m e t r i c j o u r n a l s * even
p e n e t r a t i n g t h e d a y - t o - d a y d e c i s i o n making w o r l d o f
p u b l i c school p e r s o n n e l .
But w h i l e th e number o f
t e x tb o o k s and e x p o s i t o r y a r t i c l e s r e g a r d i n g normr e f e r e n c e d t e s t i n g could be s t a c k e d in a f a i r l y
r e s p e c t a b l e p i l e { s i z e not q u a l i t y ) , t h e r e a r e few
guides a v a i l a b l e t o th e c o n s t r u c t o r o f c r i t e r i o n referenced t e s t s .
In p a r t , t h i s d e f i c i e n c y e x i s t s
because few measurement s p e c i a l i s t s have y e t d i r e c t e d
t h e i r e f f o r t s toward w r i t i n g p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' handbooks
fo r c r l t e r ion-referenced t e s t c o n s tru c tio n .
Beyond
t h a t , however, we c u r r e n t l y d o n ' t have a c o l l e c t i o n
o f handy maxims f o r such t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n .
While
w e l l - h o n e d n o t i o n s such as d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n d i c e s
and i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y e s t i m a t e s abound In th e
n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d a r e n a , few such pr oc ed u re s a r e now
a v a i l a b l e t o th e person who must g e n e r a t e and r e f i n e
c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d measures. 53
In t h e r e p o r t commissioned j o i n t l y

by th e MEA and NEA, House*

R i v e r s and S t u f f l e b e a m devo te d a l a r g e s e c t i o n t o th e M ic h ig an A ss es s­
ment Program.

House, e t a l ,

w rite :

The o b j e c t i v e s - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s have a d m i r a b l e
re lia b ility .
T h a t t s , KR-20 and p o i n t b i - s e r i a l
c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e a c c e p t a b l e f o r most o b j e c t i v e s
and i t e m s .
In o t h e r words* th e f i v e items used
t o measure each o b j e c t i v e seem t o be m easuring
th e same t h i n g and in a c o n s i s t e n t manner.
What t h e

items a r e m ea s ur in g

is t h e q u e s t i o n

52
Rodney W. Sk ag er , " G e n e r a t i n g C r J t e r i o n - R e f e r e n c e d T e s t s
from O b j e c t i v e - B a s e d Assessment Systems: Uns olve d Problems in T e s t
Dev elopment, Assembly, and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " , Problems in C r l t e r i o n Refe re nc ed Measurement, p. 55 .
53
Popham, C r i t e r i o n

R e f e r e n c e d Measurement* pp. 7 9 - 8 0 .

38

of v a l i d i t y .
T h is i s a p r o b l e m a t i c a r e a as f a r as
these t e s t s a r e c o n c e r n e d .
W h i l e t h e r e is r e a s o n ­
a b l e f i t between th e items and th e o b j e c t i v e s ,
the t e s t can o n l y be as good as th e o b j e c t i v e s
th e m s e lv e s .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t ap pe ar s as f f th e
t e s t d e v e l o p e r s d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h the v a l i d i t y o f
the o b j e c t i v e s b e f o r e p u t t i n g the t e s t s i n t o u s e.
Of equa l cause f o r concern is th e assumption
i n h e r e n t in t h e s t a t e w i d e ap proach to assessment
t h a t th e same t e s t i n s t r u m e n t form can be used
to asses s l e a r n i n g f o r a l t o f th e f o u r t h and
se ve n th grade c h i l d r e n In th e s t a t e .
C riticis m o f

th e M ic h ig a n Assessment Program does n o t c e n t e r

around th e change from n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d t o c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d
or the t e c h n i c a l

and p h i l o s o p h i c a l

but r a t h e r upon th e o b j e c t i v e s

testin g

problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h such t e s t i n g ,

that a re ,

in f a c t ,

b e in g t e s t e d .

Rudman s a y s :

fu l,

W h i l e the fo r m a t f o r r e p o r t i n g r e s u l t s is more u s e ­
th e o b j e c t i v e s th em se lv es a r e open to q u e s t i o n .

. . . the o b j e c t i v e s chosen f o r grades f o u r and
seven do not r e f l e c t a r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n o f what
a l t c h i l d r e n sh o u ld know a t th e s e grade l e v e l s .
The a t t a i n m e n t o f th e o b j e c t i v e was not po or;
the o b j e c t i v e was u n r e a l i s t i c .
I f ac co u n ta b ility
rs to be l e v i e d a g a i n s t t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
who s t a f f th e p u b l i c sc ho o ls o f M i c h i g a n , we ought
to r e c o g n i z e t h a t n o n a t t a i n m e n t o f these o b j e c t i v e s
is due more to poor pl a c e m e n t o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l
o b j e c t i v e s than i t is poor t e a c h i n g o f t h e m . 55
The M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n defends
of o b je c tiv e s
pa ne ls

.

.

f o r assessment p u r p o s e s .

. were

involved

th e ir

selection

The Department s t a t e s ,

tn t h e r e v i e w o f th e d r a f t

"T hirteen

performance o b je c -

5*t

House,

R i v e r s and S t u f f l e b e a m ,

Phi

D e l t a Kappan, Ju n e ,

197^,

p.

55
Rudman, M i c h i g a n E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l , A p r i l ,

197*t» pp.

11-12.

666

39

tives

after

hundreds,

if

preparation

by

various

referent

not thousands, o f e d u c a t o r s

groups.

Additionally,

reacted

t o the d r a f t o b j e c t i v e s
56
be fo re t h e S t a t e Board o f E d u c a t i o n approved t h e m . "
The Michigan Dep ar tm e nt o f Educ ation a l s o s t a t e s :
From th e b e g in n in g o f th e Michigan Depart me nt o f
E d u c a t i o n ' s program t o d e v e l o p s t u d e n t p e rf o r m a n c e
o b j e c t i v e s in the v a r i o u s s u b j e c t a r e a s , t h e i n t e n t
has a lw a y s been to d e v e l o p th ese o b j e c t i v e s as
"m in im a l st u d e n t e x p e c t a n c i e s . "
. . . a minimal s t u d e n t performance o b j e c t i v e is
ta k e n t o be one t h a t d e s c r i b e s an e s s e n t i a l s k i l l ,
knowledge o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g which is commonly ta u g h t
a t , o r b e lo w , a s p e c i f i e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l and
which s h o u l d be m as t er ed by n e a r l y a l l r e g u l a r p u p i l s
when t a u g h t by means o f p r e s e n t l y - k n o w n t e c h n i q u e s .
Th is d e f i n i t i o n emphasizes t h a t minimal p e rf o r m a n ce
o b j e c t i v e s deal w i t h e s s e n t I a l l e a r n i n g s , w i t h the
p r e s e n t s t a t e o f th e t e a c h i n g a r t , and w i t h th e
p o s s i b i l i t y o f near u n i v e r s a l m a s t e r y .
It fu rther
a t t e m p t s t o avoid d i c t a t i n g what the t o t a l c u r r i c u l u m
s h ou ld be in any g i v e n school d i s t r i c t .
The q u e s t i o n a r i s e s , t h e n , "How do we know t h a t
what has been d e f i n e d as m ini m al in th e s e v a r i o u s a r e a s
and a t th es e v a r i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l s a r e indeed
'm in im a l'? "
The answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n I s t h a t
a l t h o u g h many people who have had e x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e
in t h e s e ar e a s have been c a l l e d upon t o p r o v i d e t h e i r
o p i n i o n as to what c o n s t i t u t e s minimal s k i l l s , no one
a t t h i s ti m e can be c e r t a i n o f the m inimal n a t u r e o f
th es e o b j e c t i v e s u n t i l t h e y have been a p p l i e d co
i n s t r u c t i o n in a c t u a l f i e l d s i t u a t i o n s .^ 7
In a d d i t i o n

to c o l l e c t i n g

and s e v e n t h gr ad e s t u d e n t s ,

pe rf orm an ce d a t a on M ic hi g an

t h e Michig an Assessment Program has

fourth
in cl ud ed

56
M i c h i g a n Departme nt o f E d u c a t i o n , An Assessment o f th e Michig an
A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Systems, L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , May, 1 9 ? V p.
57
M i c h i g a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , An Assessment o f M ic hi g an
Accountabi I i t y , May, 197**, p.

*tO

data c o l l e c t i o n on f o u r t e e n o t h e r v a r i a b l e s which may be c o r r e l a t e d w i t h
achievement

resu lts.

Past r e s e a r c h has i n d i c a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r ­
i s t i c s o f s t u d e n t s ' background ( i . e . , t h e i r r e l a t i v e
s o c io -e c o n o m ic s t a t u s , a t t i t u d e s , and a s p i r a t i o n s )
and th e q u a l i t i e s o f the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f a r e
r e l a t e d t o a c h ie v e m e n t .
In a d d i t i o n , a v a i l a b l e
i n f o r m a t i o n has shown t h a t t h e amount o f f i n a n c i a l
r es o ur ce s s p en t by a d i s t r i c t be ar s a r e l a t i o n s h i p
t o ac hievement l e v e l s because sc ho o ls w i t h more
f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s a r e g e n e r a l l y a b l e to p r o v i d e
a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o f i n s t r u c t i o n a 1 programs and
su p p o r t f o r th e t e a c h i n g s t a f f .
These conclusions have been d e r i v e d from s t u d i e s
o f l a r g e samples o f school d i s t r i c t s and s c h o o l s .
It
must not be assumed, however, t h a t th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s
among ac hie vem en t and o t h e r v a r i a b l e s would be
a p p a r e n t in the r e p o r t s o f a l l i n d i v i d u a l d i s t r i c t s
and s c h o o l s .
M o re ov e r, ca usa l r e l a t i o n s h i p s have
not y e t been s u b s t a n t i a t e d by th e p r e v io u s r e s e a r c h
o r by th e M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment Program
data.
W h i l e c a u s a l i t y may a c t u a l l y e x i s t , the
p r e s e n t d a t a a r e not s u f f i c i e n t t o de mo ns tr at e i t .
The q u e s t i o n ,

"What f a c t o r s

in s c h o o l s ? ' 1, has been o f
Much o f

th is

in te re s t

are related

to s t u d e n t pe rf or ma nc e

to researchers

f o r a number o f y e a r s .

r e s e a r c h has been c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as an i n p u t - p r o c e s s - o u t p u t ­

mode I .
S p e c ific a lly ,

t h i s model

ha s :

(1 ) i d e n t i f i e d a c r i t e r i o n o f school p e rf o r m a n c e
as a dependent v a r i a b l e , and measures thought t o
i n f l u e n c e p e rf or m a nc e as i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s ; ( 2 )
o p e r a t i o n a l l y measured th e s e v a r i a b l e s in a sample
o f e d u c a t i n a l systems; (3 ) computed r e l a t i o n s h i p s
between ind ep en d en t and de pen de nt v a r i a b l e s ; and
(*») drawn i n f e r e n c e s from t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s as t o
what f a c t o r s , e i t h e r s i n g l y o r in c o m b i n a t i o n ,

58
M ic h ig a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , Loca 1 , D i s t r i c t and School
R e p o r t : 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 3 . March, 1973, L a n s i n g , Michigan", pp. J - 5 T

41

59
ac count f o r v a r i a t i o n

in school

T h e r e have been s e v e r a l
to i d e n t i f y

l a r g e s c a l e s t u d i e s wh ich have a t t e m p t e d

th e c o r r e l a t e s o f school

o u tp u t- m o d e l ,

Studies

In t h e

performance.

pe rf orm an ce u s i n g th e I n p u t - p r o c e s s -

I n s t i t u t e o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Research begun

in th e 1 9 4 0 ' s produced o v e r two hundred d o c t o r a l
books and a number o f monographs.
In s titu te
a ll

d isse rta tio n s,

several

P r o j e c t T a l e n t o p e r a t e d by t h e American

f o r Research Is aimed a t s t u d y i n g "American h i g h sc hoo ls

o f t h e i r d i v e r s i t y , " and i n v o l v e s 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 h i g h school

a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample o f

1, 3 5 3 o f

in

s t u d e n t s from

th e n a t i o n ’ s h i g h s c h o o l s .

The C a l i f o r n i a Study co nd ucted by Benson f o r a C a l i f o r n i a S en a te
co m m itt ee r e l a t e d

t h i r t y - f o u r school and non- s ch oo l v a r i a b l e s t o e d u c a 60
t i o n a l achievement.
Burkhead, Fox and H o l l a n d examined h i g h school
61
s t u d e n t pe rf or ma nc e and i t s c o r r e l a t e s in Chicago and A t l a n t a .
Possibly
one o f t h e b e s t known and more c o n t r o v e r s i a l
by Coleman, E q u a l i t y o f E d u c a t i o n a l
62
EducatIon.

r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s was w r i t t e n

O p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e U. S. O f f i c e o f

59
Mi c h ig a n Dep artme nt o f E d u c a t i o n , The C o r r e l a t e s o f School
P e r f o r m a n c e , 19 7 0 , L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , p. 1.

60
Education
19 6 5 , PP.

C h a r le s S. Benson, S t a t e and Local Fi sea 1 R e l a t l o n s h i ps In P u b l i c
In C a l i f o r n i a , Sacramento: S en a te o f t h e S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a ,

61
Ou tp u t

Jesse Bur khead, Thomas G. Fox and John W. H o l l a n d , I n p u t and
In Large C i t y S c h o o l s , Sy ra cu se U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967, S y r a c u s e , p.
62

James S.
Washington, D. C . ,

1966 .

Coleman, and o t h e r s . E q u a l i t y o f E d u c a t i o n a l O p p o r t u n i t y !
U. S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , No. FSS. 2 3 8 : - 3 8 0 0 1 ,

kZ

W i l b u r p o i n t s out s e v e r a l
the c o r r e l a t e s o f school

problems

inherent

in th e s t u d i e s o f

performance.

Perhaps th e fu ndamental problem f a c i n g those
s e a r c h i n g f o r the c o r r e l a t e s o f school p e rf or m a nc e
is t h a t o f a d e q u a t e l y d e f i n i n g the t e rm .
The p r o b ­
lem o f d e f i n i t i o n , In s h o r t , is one o f s e t t l i n g on
what o u r e d u c a t i o n a l proc ess es shou ld c o n s i s t o f or
be a p r o d u c t o f * - on t h i s m a t t e r we have not y e t
reached a c c o r d .
A second, r e l a t e d prob lem f a c i n g those who
would i n f e r the causes o f school p e rf o r m a n ce is
t h a t o f a d e q u a t e l y d e f i n i n g and measuring i t s
co rrela tes .
A t h i r d , and e q u a l l y f o r m i d a b l e p r o b le m , Is
t h a t o f s t a t i s t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t i n g the v a r i a b l e s
in a m e a n in g f u l manner.
T h e r e a r e too many
v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g school p e rf o r m a n ce f o r r e ­
s e a r c h e r s t o e x p e r i m e n t a l l y c o n t r o l and manipu­
l a t e them a l l a t o n c e . ° 3
Because o f th e problems p o i n t e d o u t by W i l b u r and because o f
voluminous n a t u r e o f th e r e s e a r c h on the c o r r e l a t e s o f school
th e o b j e c t i v e s o f
studies

th is

s tu dy w i l l

t h a t most c l o s e l y r e l a t e
The e x t e n t o f e m p i r i c a l

t o the p r o b le m .
research t r e a t i n g

i n c r e a s i n g number o f p r op on en ts

o b jectives

performance,

b e s t be se rv e d by r e v i e w i n g those

as a v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s t u d e n t ac hie ve m en t
o f the

the

behavioral

ob jectives

is n e g l i g i b l e

In terms

f a v o r i n g th e use o f b e h a v i o r a l

f o r c la s s ro o m i n s t r u c t i o n .

Loh I n v e s t i g a t e d
t o hig h school

students

th e e f f e c t s o f p r e s e n t i n g b e h a v i o r a l
in f i r s t

year algebra c la s s e s .

ob jec tive s

I t was co nc lu de d

t h a t th e r e s u l t s o f the s t u d y d i d n o t s u p p o r t th e use o f b e h a v i o r a l

63
M ic h ig a n D epartme nt o f E d u c a t i o n , The C o r r e l a t e s o f School
L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , 19 70, pp. 13“ 15.

Performance,

l»3

64
o b j e c t i v e s as a proc edu re f o r
Th o r n b e r g
on 178 male A i r
not shown t o

in ves tig a ted

the e f f e c t s o *

learn ing .

in stru ctio n al

ob jec tive s

Force t r a i n e e s .

P r i o r knowledge o f th e o b j e c t i v e s was
65
p e rf o r m a n ce on s u b j e c t m a t t e r .

increase o v e r a l l

Drennen

in vestigated

on s t u d e n t ac hie ve m en t
lev el.

im pr ov in g measures o f

th e e f f e c t s o f s p e c i f i c

in r e m e d ia l

math em ati cs a t

pe rf or ma nc e o b j e c t i v e s

th e j u n i o r c o l l e g e

Drennen r e p o r t s

t h e r e were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r 66
ences among groups on th e a c h ie ve m en t g a i n s c o r e .
Oswald s t u d i e d th e use o f o b j e c t i v e s on ac hie ve m en t r e l a t e d
s o c ia l

studies

stude nts

knowledge and comprehension w i t h 619 e l e v e n t h grad e

in C a l i f o r n i a and M a r y la n d s c h o o l s .

in s tru c tio n a 1 objectives e x p l i c i t
late a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
e x p lic it

to

d iffe re n t
67

He d i s c o v e r e d t h a t making

has n o t been d e m o n s t r a te d

test

to s t i m u ­

response tha n would oc cu r w i t h o u t

o b jectives.

64

Elmwood L o c k e r t Loh, "The E f f e c t o f B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s on
Measures o f L e a r n i n g and F o r g e t t i n g on h i g h School A l g e b r a , " (u n p u b l i s h e d
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d , 1 9 7 2 ) .
65
S y l v i a Dubbe T h o r n b u r g , "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f th e E f f e c t s o f
I n s t r u c t i o n a 1 O b j e c t i v e s " , ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y
o f 11 1 ino is , 1 9 7 0 -

66
R o b e r t Lee Drenn en, "The E f f e c t o f S p e c i f i c P er for m anc e
O b j e c t i v e s on Stud en t Ach ievement A t t i t u d e and A t t r i t i o n in Remedial
M a th e m a ti cs a t J e f f e r s o n S t a t e J u n i o r C o l l e g e " , ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ed. D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Auburn U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 1 ) .
67
James M a r l i n Os wa ld, " I n s t r u c t o r S p e c i f i e d I n s t r u c t i o n a l
O b j e c t i v e s and Achievement o f S o c i a l S t u d i e s Knowledge and Comprehension",
( u n p u b l i s h e d Ed. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 0 ) .

C ardarelli

in vestigated

th e e f f e c t on p u p i l

te ac h e r s a r e a s s i g n e d and t r a i n e d
C a rd a re lli's
d is tric ts

study

in the use o f b e h a v i o r a l

i n v o l v e d 32 f i f t h

in c e n t r a l

ac hie vem en t when

grade t e a c h e r s

New York S t a t e .

o b jec tive s.

in t h r e e school

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were

found in ac hi e ve m en t scores f o r s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n
68
t e a c h e r s using p r e d e t e r m i n e d b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s .
In a s e r i e s o f
determine te a c h e rs '

in terview s w ith

perceptions o f

N er bo vig found t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d
grades were more a p t

Nerbo vig t r i e d

to

the f u n c t i o n s o f o b j e c t i v e s .

t e a c h e r s who t a u g h t

t o use o b j e c t i v e s

Teachers most c l e a r l y

teachers,

from

fo r planning

the i n t e r m e d i a t e
in stru ctio n al

u n its .

saw e v a l u a t i o n as the m a jo r f u n c t i o n t o be pel—

formed by o b j e c t i v e s .
Kalish

in ves tig a ted

o b je c tiv e s w ith

fifth

the e f f e c t s

grade s t u d e n t s

in a c hi e ve m en t o f u s in g b e h a v i o r a l

in map and g l o b e s k i l l s .

i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between those s t u d e n t s
ob jectives p rio r
70
obj ec t i v e s .

to

i n s t r u c t i o n and those t h a t

receiving

No s i g n i f ­
behavioral

d i d not r e c e i v e t h e

68
Aldo F r a n c i s C a r d a r e l l i , "An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the E f f e c t on
P u p il Achievement When Teachers Are Assigned and T r a i n e d in th e Use o f
B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s " , ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Syracuse
Un i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 1 ) .
69
M a r c e l l a Hannah N e r b o v i g , " T e a c h e r s :
P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e F u n c ti o n s
o f O b j e c t i v e s " , ( u n p u b l i s h e d P h .D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f
Wi scons i n , 19 5 6 ) .
70
D a n ie l M i l e s K a l i s h , "The E f f e c t s on Achievement o f Using
B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s w i t h F i f t h Grade S t u d e n t s " , ( u n p u b l i s h e d P h. D .
d i s s e r t a t i o n , O h io S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 2 ) .

*5

Baker
behavioral
social

In vestigated

the e f f e c t s

on s t u d e n t a c h ie v e m e n t o f

and n o n - b e h a v i o r a I o b j e c t i v e s

studies c lasses.

f o r high school

priate

to s e l e c t

o f th e

those t e s t

understood t h e o b j e c t i v e s

items w i t h t h e i r

In a d d i t i o n ,

I terns wh ich th ey

f o r measuring t h e o b j e c t i v e s .

c a re fu lly

in

Stud en ts were t e s t e d on t w e n t y - t h r e e o b j e c t i v e s .

R e s u l t s y i e l d e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s .
teachers

students

It

Baker asked

f e l t wo uld be

was b e l i e v e d t h a t

most a p p r o ­
a t e a c h e r who

sh o u ld be a b l e to match 75 p e r c e n t

proper o b j e c t i v e s .

I t was fo und t h a t most
71
t e a c h e r s 1 responses w e r e a t a p p r o x i m a t e ! y chance l e v e l s .
B r y a n t ' s s t u d y was conducted t o d e te r m in e th e e f f e c t s o f

e x p r e s s i n g pe rf orm an ce o b j e c t i v e s on t h e achievement
a c h ie v in g e ig h th grade science p u p ils
c ity

sc ho o ls

d iffe re n c e

in C i n c i n n a t i .

Bry an t

in the a c h ie v e m e n t

lev els

le v e l

of

low

in f o u r p r e d o m i n a n t l y b l a c k

fa ile d

inner

to f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t

between those g r ou ps

receiving
72

p e r f o r m a n c e o b j e c t i v e s and those groups t h a t d i d not
I n a s t u d y by Webb,
mine

the e f f e c t s

of

using

b eh avio ral

rece ive o b je c tiv e s .

fo u r e ig h th grade classroom s

o b je c tiv e s ,

to d e t e r ­

he c o n c l u d e d :

. . . th e use o f b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s and
c r i t e r i o n e v a l u a t i o n had a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on
th e cla ss roo m p r o g r e s s o f a d o l e s c e n t s .
I t was
found t h a t w i t h a d e q u a t e t r a i n i n g , te a c h e r s were

71
Eva L. B a k e r , " E f f e c t s on S t u d e n t Achievement o f B e h a v i o r a l and
N o n b e h a v i o r a I O b j e c t i v e s " , ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f
C a l i f o r n i a , 1969).
72
Napoleon B r y a n t , J r . , "The E f f e c t s o f P e r fo r m a n c e O b j e c t i v e s
on t h e Achievement L e v e l o f S e l e c t e d E i g h t h Grade S c i e n c e P u p i l s in Four
P r e d o m i n a n t l y B la c k I n n e r C i t y S c h o o l s " , (u n p u b l i s h e d E d. D , d i s s e r t a t I o n ,
Indiana U n iv e r s ity , 1970).

46

a b l e t o m o d i f y t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l te c h n i q u e s so
t h a t l e a r n e r s reaped g r e a t e r b e n e f i t from the
i n s t r u c t i o n a l process than t h e y g e n e r a l l y do in
c o n v e n t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . 73
Clingman s t u d i e d th e
o f educational

impact o f t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t knowledge

o b j e c t i v e s on s t u d e n t

learn in g .

C l i n g m a n ' s sample con­

s i s t e d o f t w e n t y - t w o classrooms o f a d u l t s e n r o l l e d
p rin cip als o f

Insurance.

to study general

Clingman co n cl u d e d :

T h er e were s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on p u p i l s a c h i e v e ­
ment a t t r i b u t a b l e t o th e t r a i n i n g o f the t e a c h e r and
t o d i f f e r e n c e s In i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r s .
P u p i l s ta u g h t
by t e a c h e r s t r a i n e d in th e use and development o f
p e rf o r m a n ce o b j e c t i v e s p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r on th e c r i ­
t e r i o n me asure, and the a c h ie v e m e n t l e v e l a p u p i l
a t t a i n s may be g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by th e p e d a g o g ic a l
te c h n i q u e s th e teacher uses duri ng i n s t r u c t i o n .
P r o v i d i n g p u p i l s w i t h o b j e c t i v e s improved t h e i r
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what was e x p e c t e d o f them and t h e i r
a b i l i t y t o work i n d e p e n d e n t l y a n d / o r in small gr o u p s .
Teach ers who used p e r f o r m a n c e o b j e c t i v e s were more
aware o f sp on ta n ta n eo u s de ve lo pm en ts t h a t o c c u r r e d in
th e c l a s s r o o m and e x h i b i t e d g r e a t e r c o n f i d e n c e In
t h e i r a b i l i t y t o de sig n e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l
programs and m a t e r i a l s . ' 4
P u c k e t t SLLdied the use o f b e h a v i o r a l
Technical

I n s t i t u t e a> Memphis.

s ig n ific a n tly

Puckett

o b jec tive s

in t h e S t a t e

found t h a t s t u d e n t s scored

b e t t e r on exams when th ey were e n r o l l e d

in c o ur se s t h a t

73
A l f r e d B e r t Webb, " E f f e c t o f the Use o f B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s
and C r i t e r i o n E v a l u a t i o n on Clas sroom P rog re ss o f A d o l e s c e n t s " , (unpub­
l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , th e U n i v e r s i t y o f Tenn ess ee, 1 9 7 1 ) *
74
Evan E a r l Clingma n, "T he Impact o f Te a c h e r and S tu d e n t Know­
led ge o f E d u c a t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s on S tu d en t L e a r n i n g and S a t i s f a c t i o n " ,
( u n p u b l i s h e d P h .D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , 1 9 7 2 ) .

**7

75
were based on s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d b e h a v i o r a l
In a r e v i e w o f s e v e r a l
Duc has tel and M e r r i l l

s t u d i e s conducted between i 9 6 0 and 1972,

i n d i c a t e some o f

se ar ch p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e .

o b jec tive s.

th e d i f f i c u l t i e s

w ith the r e ­

They s t a t e :

A d i f f i c u l t y i n v o l v e d In r e s e a r c h on o b j e c t i v e s
l i e s in th e n a t u r e o f the o b j e c t i v e s t h e m s e l v e s .
A
s e t o f b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s has many di mensions
which should be ta k e n I n t o ac co u nt in d e s i g n i n g
r e s e a r c h and r e p o r t i n g r e s u l t s .
Of s p e c i a l Im p o r ­
ta n c e is the di me ns io n o f s p e c i f i c i t y which may
not n e c e s s a r i l y co n cu r w i t h th e di mens io n wh ich
c a t e g o r i z e d o b j e c t i v e s as b e h a v i o r a l o r nonbehavioral.
F u t u r e r e s e a r c h shou ld seek t o c l a r i f y
th e s e dime ns ions th ro ug h e x p l i c i t o p e r a t i o n a l
d e f 1n i t i o n s . '
J e nk in s and Oenoy co nd ucted a s tu dy t o d e t e r m i n e what a f f e c t s
type and knowledge o f
The r e s u l t s

reported

type and knowledge o f

th e o b j e c t i v e s o f
for

th is

In stru ctio n

have on l e a r n i n g .

s tu dy do not s u p p o r t t h e p r o p o s i t i o n

the o b je c tiv e s o f

In a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e i r s tu dy r e s u l t s ,
p o s s i b i l i t i e s wh ich may account

for

in stru ctio n

fa c ilita te

that

le a rn in g .

Je nk in s and Denoy r a i s e s e v e r a l

th e ir

fin din gs.

They s t a t e :

The p o s s i b i l i t y r e m a in s , howe ve r, t h a t t y p e and
knowledge o f o b j e c t i v e s were i n s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s
because th ey r e c e i v e d in a d e q u a te a t t e n t i o n from bo th
t h e t e a c h e r s and t h e s t u d e n t s .
S in c e t e a c h e r s and
s t u d e n t s r a r e l y a r e exposed t o t h e e x p l i c i t o b j e c ­
t i v e s o f i n s t r u c t i o n t h e y m ight f a l l t o use t h e s e
o b j e c t i v e s a p p r o p r i a t e l y e i t h e r because t h e i r v a l u e
is not r e c o g n i z e d o r because one must l e a r n how t o
use e x p l i c i t o b j e c t i v e s .

75
T e r r y James P u c k e t t , " I m p l e m e n t i n g and A s s e s s in g I n s t r u c t i o n v i a
I n s t r u c t i o n a l Systems and B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s " , ( u n p u b l i s h e d P h. D .
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 1 ) .
76
P h i l i p p e C.

D uc ha s te l and P.

F.

M e rrill,

"B ehavioral

O bjectives

and Learning: A Rev iew o f th e L i t e r a t u r e " , Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h ,
Vol.

1*3, Mo.

1, Ju n e ,

1972.

48

Perhaps a s t r o n g e r t e s t o f the b e n e f i t s p o te n ­
t i a l l y d e r i v a b l e from e x p l i c i t o b j e c t i v e s c o u ld be
o b ta in e d I f s t u d e n ts o r t e a c h e r s r e c e iv e d some I n ­
c e n t i v e to use th e o b j e c t i v e s , o r were g iv e n p r a c t i c e
in t h e i r u s e.
At l e a s t one o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s f o r why
knowledge and t y p e o f o b j e c t i v e f a i l e d t o emerge
as s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s .
When a u n i t is w e l l
s t r u c t u r e d , t h a t i s , d e s ig ne d t o f a c i l i t a t e th e
attainm ent o f p a r t i c u l a r o b je c tiv e s , e x p l i c i t l y
s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s may be s u p e r f l u o u s In chat
t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s a r e a b l e t o "r e a d t h r o u g h "
th e m a t e r i a l s t o th e o b j e c t i v e s .
I f t h i s Is th e
case s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s w i l l I n f l u e n c e l e a r n i n g
o n l y i n d i r e c t l y th rou gh t h e i r I n f l u e n c e on the
design o f the c u r r i c u l a r m a t e r i a l s .
An a d d i t i o n a l c o n c l u s i o n suggested by t h e d a ta
is t h a t th e argument which su ggest s t h a t e x p l i c i t l y
s t a t i n g b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s produces Improvement
In l e a r n i n g I s a d i f f i c u l t argument t o su p p o r t
empi r t c a l l y . ' *

Summary

1.

Behavioral or

in s tru c tio n a l o b je c tiv e s are re c e iv in g

in­

c r e a s i n g emphasis as a b a si s f o r s p e c i f y i n g e d u c a t i o n a l ou tc o m e s.
2.
c ritic is m

The b e h a v i o r a l

o b j e c t i v e s movement has met w i t h some

because t h e process

Is viewed as r e d u c i n g e d u c a t i o n t o

m i n i s c u l e segments.
3.
is u n l i k e l y

I f c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s do not v a l u e o b j e c t i v e s ,
that

they w i l l

r e c e i v e much emphasis

pro c es s and, t h e r e f o r e , w i l l

have minimal

then

It

in th e I n s t r u c t i o n a l

Impact on s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .

77
Joseph R. J e n k in s and S t a n l e y D. Denoy, " I n f l u e n c e o f Knowledge
and Type o f O b j e c t i v e s on S u b j e c t - M a t t e r L e a r n i n g " , J o u rn a l o f E d u c a tio n a l
P s y c h o lo g y . V o l . 6 2 , No. I , 1 9 7 1 , pp. 6 7 * 7 0 .

U3

The M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l

Assessment Program Is based on t h e

assessment o f " m i n i m a l " p e rf or m a nc e o b j e c t i v e s .
5.
versy.
tives

Is a sour ce o f c o n t r o ­

The M ic h ig a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n m a i n t a i n s
selected

Michigan,
that

What c o n s t i t u t e s a " m in i m a )' * o b j e c t i v e

f o r assessment a r e ,

s p e c ific a lly

in f a c t ,

"m inim al."

t h a t th e o b j e c ­
O th e r groups

th e M ic h ig a n E d u c a ti o n A s s o c i a t i o n ,

In

do n o t a g r e e

the o b j e c t i v e s asses sed a r e " m i n i m a l . "
6.

C r 1 t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d measurement

measurement as a method
7.

T rad itio n al

in a s s e s s i n g

is r e p l a c i n g n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d

In stru ctio n al

o b jec tive s.

psychometric p r i n c i p l e s a p p lie d

to norm-referenced

measurement may not n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y t o c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d measurement.
S p e c ific a lly ,

tn e problems r e l a t e

a.

v a 1i d I t y

b.

re 1 iab i 1 i t y

c.

d e fin itio n s

d.

th e number o f

to:

o f acceptable c r i t e r i a
items needed to a c c u r a t e l y measure an

o b je c t Ive
8.
ment a r e

Research on th e e f f e c t s

o f behavioral

o b j e c t i v e s on a c h i e v e ­

i n c o n c l u s i v e because:
a.

t e a c h e r s do not n e c e s s a r i l y v ie w i n s t r u c t i o n a l
o b j e c t i v e s as

im po rtant.

b.

t e a c h e r s a r e n o t g i v e n an i n c e n t i v e

c.

em pirical

t o use o b j e c t i v e s .

e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g th e use o f o b j e c t i v e s

not a v a i l a b l e

Tn s u f f i c i e n t q u a l i t y o r q u a n t i t y .

is

CHAPTER 111
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The
of a l l
of

sample f o r t h i s

primary

teachers

s t u d y was

s e l e c t e d from th e p o p u l a t i o n

In Oakland County, M i c h i g a n .

th is study primary teachersa re defined as:

s t u d e n ts

in

grades o n e ,

two o r

twenty e i g h t school d i s t r i c t s
2,484 students

cla ss ro om t e a c h e r s

of

Oakland County encompasses

which have e n r o l l m e n t s wh ich range from

t o 23,011* s t u d e n t s .

p r im a r y t e a c h e r s ;
Per p u p i l

three.

For th e purposes

The l a r g e s t d i s t r i c t employs 217

th e s m a l l e s t d i s t r i c t employs 20 p r i m a r y t e a c h e r s .

expenditures

range from a high o f $ 1 , 7 9 9 * 9 9 t o a low o f

I
$8 1*8.US.
The coun ty

includes d i s t r i c t s

f i c a t i o n s o f school
E d u c a ti o n

d is tric ts

used by the M i c h i g a n D ep ar tmen t o f

in r e p o r t i n g d i s t r i c t

T a b l e 3-1

in each o f the f i v e c l a s s i ­

ac hie vem en t

shows th e number o f school

scores.
d is tric ts

w ith in

th e

f i v e c I a s s i f i ca t i on s .

1975,

1
Oakland S c h o o ls , Summaries and Sur vey s 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 7 5 ,
pp. 1 - 1 5 -------------------------------------------

50

January,

51

TABLE 3.1
School

D is tric t C la s s ific a tio n s

In Oaklan d County* Mic higa n *

C la s s ific a tio n

Number o f D i s t r i c t s
1
1
8
16

Metro--Core
C ity
Towns
Urban F r i n g e
Ru ra 1

2
28

TOTAL

*
C ha p te r 1, D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms* pp.

7~9.

52

Sample S e l e c t i o n

A ll
s tra tifie d

tw e n ty e i g h t school d i s t r i c t s

in Oakland County wer e

i n t o one o f th e f i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f school

The s a m p lin g frame was d e v e l o p e d by l i s t i n g
elementary b u ild in g s w it h in

the d i s t r i c t

a ll

d is tric ts .

d i s t r i c t s and a l l

and th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

strata.

The number o f p r i m a r y t e a c h e r s

lis te d .

A ten p e r c e n t sample from each s t r a t a was d e t e r m i n e d t o be

s u ffic ie n tly
of

in te re s t.

in each b u i l d i n g was a l s o

l a r g e enough t o make i n f e r e n c e s about th e p o p u l a t i o n
C la s s ific a tio n

V was sampled beyond t h e t e n p e r c e n t

level

t o a c q u i r e an N beyond 30.
2
Hypothesis IV.

T h is was n e c e s s a r y f o r t e s t i n g

E le m en ta r y b u i l d i n g s were randomly s e l e c t e d fr o m each
s t r a t u m t o produce th e number o f p r i m a r y t e a c h e r s n e c e s s a r y f o r
s a m p li n g a t

th e ten p e r c e n t

le v e l.

A ll

primary teachers w i t h i n a

s e l e c t e d b u i l d i n g were sampled.
A to tal

of

296

p r i m a r y t e a c h e r respond en ts from 42 b u i l d i n g s

r e p r e s e n t i n g 21 school d i s t r i c t s made up t h e sample f o r t h i s s t u d y .
T a b l e 3 . 2 d i s p l a y s t h e number o f b u i l d i n g s and t e a c h e r responses from
th e f i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and t a b l e s

3 * 3 through 3*6 show summary

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e samp le.

2
H o lt,

John T. Roscoe, Fundamental Research S t a t i s t i c s , New Y or k:
R i n e h a r t and Winston^ i n c . , HT69* p p . F55—157-

53

TABLE 3 . 2
Number o f Responses

D is tric t C las s ific a tio n

Bui I d logs

Teachers

1
11
111
IV
V

4
6
8
20
It

50
36
57
112
*1

42

296*

TOTAL

TABLE 3 . 3
Summary C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
10% Sample

Degree Level

Number

Degree Level
B. A .
B. A.
15 h r s .
h.A.
H. A. + 15 h r s .

72
73
55
4
204

TOTAL

TABLE 3 . A
Summary C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
10% Sample

Y ea r s o f T e a c h in g E x p e r i e n c e

Y ear s o f T e a c h i n g E x p e r i e n c e

Number

0-5
6-10
11-15
15- a b o v e

55
73
37
39

TOTAL

204

* C l a s s i f i c a t i o n V was sampled beyond t h e t e n p e r c e n t
a c q u i r e an N ^ 3 0 ,

level

to

5*

TABLE 3 . 5
Summary C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
10% Sample

Grade Level Ta ught

Grade Level

Number

1
2
3

71
68
65

TOTAL

20*

TABLE 3 . 6
Summary C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
10% Sample

Sex

Sex o f T e a c h e r

Number

Male
Female

8
196

TOTAL

20*

55

I n t e r v i e w i n g P ro ce d ur e

The p r i n c i p a l s o f t h e s e l e c t e d e l e m e n t a r y b u i l d i n g s were
c o n t a c t e d by t e l e p h o n e .

The i n t e r v i e w e r e x p l a i n e d t h e o b j e c t i v e s

o f t h e s t u d y and s o l i c i t e d

the b u ild in g p r i n c i p a l ' s a s s is ta n c e

In

e s t a b l i s h i n g a c o n v e n i e n t m e e t in g t im e f o r t e a c h e r s w i t h i n t h e
b u ild in g .

The I n t e r v i e w e r was s u c c e s s f u l

assistance

in a l l

but two c a s e s .

fn o b t a i n i n g t h e p r i n c i p a l ' s

Two a d d i t i o n a l

b u i l d i n g s were

randomly s e l e c t e d and t h e c o o p e r a t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l was
obtained

in both o f t h e s e ca ses *
Between F e b ru a ry 3 ,

1975 and A p r i l

t r a v e l e d t o each o f th e f o r t y

25,

1975 th e

In te rv ie w e r

two b u i l d . n g s and In t e r v ie w e d t e a c h e r s

d u rin g th e e s t a b l i s h e d m e e tin g t im e .

In t e r v i e w s were co nducted b e fo r e

and a f t e r

r e g u l a r c la ss ro o m tim e and on some o c c a s io n s d u r i n g th e

t e a c h e r 's

lunch h o u r.

The i n t e r v i e w s wer e conducted

In a group s e t t i n g ,

b u t each

resp ond en t was i n s t r u c t e d t o c o m p le te t h e s u r v e y form i n d e p e n d e n t l y .
The i n t e r v i e w e r was p r e s e n t d u r i n g th e t im e t h e su rv ey s w er e b e in g
completed t o as s u r e t h a t

independent responses were In f a c t o c c u r r i n g .

The i n t e r v i e w e r was a l s o a v a i l a b l e t o answer c l a r i f y i n g q u e s t i o n s
about t h e
m igh t

instrum ent;

the

I n t e r v i e w e r d i d n o t answer q u e s t i o n s which

i n f l u e n c e t h e responses o f th e s u b j e c t s .
Complete d a t a w er e r e c e i v e d fr o m one hundred p e r c e n t o f

the re s p o n d e n ts
d is tric ts ,

in each o f

the f o r t y

two b u i l d i n g s ,

and f i v e s t r a t u m c l a s s ! f i c a t I o n s .

t w e n t y one school

56

M e a su re s

Two meas uri ng
(1)

I n s t r u m e n t s were used In t h i s

The su rv e y

instrum ent.

P ri m a r y T e a c h e r ' s R a t i n g s o f

t h e M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l
O b jectives:

study;

Grade F o u r ,

Assessment Program Reading
(2 ) The M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l

Assessment Program 1973~l97fr Grade Four Reading
O bjectives Test.

Survey

The s u r v e y

Instrument

i n s t r u m e n t was c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e

i n s t r u m e n t s used f o r t h e v a l i d a t i o n
3
A
by Fr e n c h
and B a k e r .
R e lia b ility
in t h i s
• 9A.
in

estim ates

th e ir

ratin g o f

ratin g o f

in s tru c tio n a l

c o n d u c t e d on t h e s u r v e y

study produced a c o r r e c t e d

This c o r r e l a t i o n

or

in d icated

odd-even

that

the

basis o f s i m i l a r
o b je ctiv es

instrum ent

re lia b ility

used

c o e ffic ie n t

of

respondents were c o n s i s t e n t

the o b j e c t i v e s .

3
Wf11 F r e n c h , Behav f o r a I Goa i s o f Genera I Educat ton In HIgh
S c h o o I , New Y ork: R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1957*
2)$.
A
Eva L. B a k e r , " P a r e n t s , T e a c h e r s , and S t u d e n t s as Data
Sources f o r t h e S e l e c t i o n o f I n s t r u c t io n a I Go als'*, American E d u c a t i o n a l
Research J o u r n a l , V o l . I X , No. 3 , Summer, 1972, p . A07.

57

HEAP Grade Four O b j e c t I v e R e fe re n c e d Reading T e s t
Each o b j e c t i v e

tested

in th e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment

Program is c o n s i d e r e d t o be a " t e s t " o f f i v e q u e s t i o n s * and t h e
re lia b ility
c o e ffic ie n ts

is c a l c u l a t e d by th e K u d e r -R Ic h a r d s o n " f o r m u l a 2 0 " .
reported fo r

range from a low o f

.51

The

th e 1973’“ 197A f o u r t h g r a d e r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s

to a high o f

.88.

Des ign
The d e s i g n f o r
5
in n a t u r e .

th is

s tu dy

I s p r e - e x p e r i m e n t a l and d e s c r i p t i v e

T e s t a b l e Hypotheses

Hypothesis
N ull

hypothesis:

I

c la ss ro om t e a c h e r s a g r e e t h a t

th e

M ic h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment Program r e a d i n g
o b jec tive s

(Grade A) a r e m i n i m a l .

H : P£ .8
o
Legend:

P » the p ro p o rtio n o f

o b jec tive

fiv e

(5)*

A lte r n a t e hypothesis:
that

Hj ?

5

c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s do n o t a g r e e

th e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l

ob jectives

t h e Ss r a t i n g an

Assessment Program r e a d i n g

(Grade A) a r e m i n i m a l .

P<.8

Donald T . Campbell and J u l i a n C. S t a n l e y * E x p e r i m e n t a l and
Quas1- E x p e r i m e n t a l Designs f o r R e s e a r c h , Chi ca go: Rand M c N a l l y and
Company, lSK>6, pp. 6 - 7 .

58

Hypothesis
N ull

hypothesis:

T h er e

II

I s no d i f f e r e n c e between

s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f cla ss roo m t e a c h e r s and
th e r a t i n g s

t e a c h e r s g i v e t o th e m in im al

reading

o b ject Ive .
H : a. • a . ■ a " a
* a * 0
0
I
2
3
J|
5
Legend: a^ " s t r a t u m c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
a^ ■ sex o f t h e t e a c h e r s
a^ ■ gr ad e l e v e l

- t e a c h i n g a s si g nm en t

a^ ■ y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e
a^ ” d e g r e e l e v e l
A lt e r n a t e hypothesis:

T h e r e Is a d i f f e r e n c e between

selected c h a ra c te r is tic s
th e r a t i n g s

o f c la ss ro om t e a c h e r s and

teachers g iv e

t o the m in im a l

reading

o b je c tiv e s .
H .:
1

H : Is f a l s e .
o

Hypothesis
Null

hypothesis:

There

III

i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between

s t u d e n t ac h ie v e m e n t and th e r a t i n g
t h e minimal
H : r o

teachers g ive to

reading o b j e c t i v e s .

0

A l t e r n a t e hypothesis:

Th ere

Is a p o s i t i v e

between s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t and t h e r a t i n g
give

t o th e mi nim al

Hj : r > 0

reading o b j e c t i v e s .

re la tio n s h ip
teachers

bS

A lt e r n a t e hypothesis:

There

is a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p

between s t u d e n t ac hi e ve m en t and th e r a t i n g
g i v e t o th e minimal

teachers

reading o b j e c t i v e s .

H2 : r < 0

Hypothesis

Null

hypothesis:

IV

The p r o p o r t i o n o f te a c h e r s

o b j e c t i v e s as minimal w i l l

ratin g

th e

n o t v a r y among th e f i v e

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f school d i s t r i c t s .

Legend: P ■ p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e S ' s

In a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

r a t i n g an o b j e c t i v e f i v e

(5 ) •

A l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis:

The p r o p o r t i o n o f t e a c h e r s

ra tin g

th e o b j e c t i v e s as m inimal w i l l

f i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f school
V

P | ** P2 ** P3 * %

v a r y among t h e

d is tric ts .

* P5 * °

Analysi s
H y p o t h e s is

I:

A ratin g of fiv e

meet th e c r i t e r i o n o f m i n i m a l .
In dicates
Im portant,

th a t the o b j e c t i v e
c ritic a l

(5)

on an o b j e c t i v e w i l l

The r a t i n g o f f i v e

(5)

is c o n s i d e r e d as a v e r y

or essen tial

s k ill

and b e s t meet s th e

d e f i n i t i o n o f a m in im al o b j e c t i v e e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e
M i c h i g a n Dep artment o f E d u c a t i o n .

An 80 p e r c e n t c r i t e r i o n

o f a c c e p t a n c e by c la s s r o o m t e a c h e r s w i l l
that

the o b je c t iv e s are

in f a c t m i n i m a l .

r e p r e s e n t consensus

60

Hypothes is

II:

A one way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i l l

t o d e t e r m i n e th e a f f e c t o f th e v a r i a b l e s ;
gr ade l e v e l

t a u g h t , degree l e v e l ,

be used

c la s s ific a tio n ,

years o f teaching experience

and sex o f t h e t e a c h e r s , on t h e r a t i n g s t e a c h e r s g i v e t o th e
o b ject Iv e s .

HypothesIs

III:

technique w i l l
te ach er's

Hypothesis

The P e a r s o n - p r o d u c t moment c o r r e l a t i o n a l
be used t o d e t e r m i n e th e c o r r e l a t i o n between

ratin g of

IV :

t h e o b j e c t i v e s and s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .

A one way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i l l

t o d e t e r m i n e what d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s on the r a t i n g s

be used
teachers

g i v e t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s among t h e f i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f
school

d is tric ts .

61

SUMMARY

T eachers r a t i n g s o f th e m in im a l

re a d in g s o b j e c t i v e s Grade

4 o f th e M ichig an E d u c a tio n a l Assessment Program,

(MEAP) were c o l l e c t e d

from 296 p r im a r y te a c h e r s from k Z e le m e n ta r y b u i l d i n g s
d is tric ts

in Oakland C o u n ty , M ic h ig a n .

in to f i v e c la s s if ic a t io n s

In 21 school

The d i s t r i c t s were s t r a t i f i e d

by ty p e based on th e r e p o r t i n g fo rm a t used

in th e M ic h ig a n E d u c a tio n a l Assessment Program.
One hundred p e r c e n t o f th e sample responded t o th e s u rv ey
in s tru m e n t which was d e sig n ed t o measure te a c h e r r a t i n g s o f th e m in im a l
re a d in g o b j e c t i v e s

te s te d

In g rad e k th ro ugh th e MEAP.

E ig h ty p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s

r a t i n g an o b j e c t i v e as f i v e

meets t h e c r i t e r i a o f a c c e p ta n c e o f a m inim al o b j e c t i v e .
a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e w i l l
o f;

c la s s ific a tio n ,

g rad e

le v e l

A one way

be used to d e te r m in e what a f f e c t s

s e x , degree l e v e l ,

ta u g h t have on th e r a t i n g s

(5 )

the v a r i a b l e s

y e a rs o f t e a c h in g e x p e r i e n c e , and
te a c h e r s g i v e

t o th e r e a d in g

o b je c t i v e s .
P e a r s o n -p ro d u c t moment c o r r e l a t i o n s w i l l
th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e a c h e r 's
s t u d e n t a c h ie v e m e n t.

be s e c u re d to a s c e r t a i n

r a t i n g s o f th e r e a d in g o b j e c t i v e s and

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The d a t a c o l l e c t e d and a n a l y z e d by th e p r oc ed u re s d e s c r i b e d
Chapter

111 a r e p r e s e n t e d

in t h i s

chapter.

f o l l o w e d by a s t a t e m e n t s p e c i f y i n g t h e
pertaining

Each h y p o t h e s i s

level

in

Is s t a t e d

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e and data

t o th e h y p o t h e s i s .

Hypothesis

Hypothesis Tested:
Educational

I

Classroom t e a c h e r s a g r e e t h a t

Assessment Program r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s

th e M ic h ig a n

(g ra de 4)

are m inim al.

Il0 : P > .8
A r a t i n g o f f i v e on an o b j e c t i v e w i l l
m inim al.
A fiv e

E igh ty percent acceptance w i l l

percent

level

r e j e c t i n g o r not
of teachers'

r e j e c t i n g H y p o t h e s is

meet th e c r i t e r i a o f conse ns us.

I.

for

T a b l e ^ .1 shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n

r a t i n g s on each o f th e n i n e t e e n o b j e c t i v e s .

le s s than e i g h t y p e r c e n t ;

r a t i n g an o b j e c t i v e a f i v e

thus,

Hypothes is
Hypothesis Te ste d:

Th er e

H y p o t h e s is

I

is s i g n i f i ­

is r e j e c t e d .

II

is no d i f f e r e n c e between s e l e c t e d

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c la ss ro om t e a c h e r s and t h e r a t i n g s
the m in im al

of

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e has been chosen as t h e b a s i s

The p r o p o r t i o n o f t e a c h e r s
ca n tly

meet t h e c r i t e r i a

reading o b j e c t i v e s .

Ho ! a | ■ *2 " *3 ■ *1, ■ a 5 " 0

62

teachers g iv e

to

63

TABLE 4 ,1
Teachers'

R a t i n g o f th e Reading O b j e c t i v e s

(Grade 4)

R a tin g S c a le

1
O b jectives

i
Percentage

1

!l

1

D is trib u tio n

1

1.5

2.0

24,5

38.7

33.3

2

1.0

3.9

27.9

36.8

30.4

3

5-4

1 4 .2

35-3

27.9

17.2

3.4

7-4

29 .9

40.7

18.6

5

2.5

4.9

2 0 .1

41.7

30.9

6

1.0

5.4

28 .9

36.3

28.4

7

1.5

8.3

29*4

35.3

25-5

8

9- 3

21.6

36.8

2 2. 1

10.3

9

2.9

8.3

30.4

36.3

22.1

10

1.0

4.9

24.0

40.7

29.4

11

1.5

3-9

17.2

41.2

36.3

12

4 . it

14.7

29.9

34.8

1 6 .2

13

2.5

2.5

30.4

41.2

23*5

14

2.9

20.6

34.3

32.8

9.3

15

2.9

12.3

39.7

30.9

14.2

16

0.5

7.4

25 .0

41 .7

25.5

17

4.9

16.7

36.3

27.5

14.7

18

8.8

20.6

37.7

2 7 .0

5.9

19

4.9

10.3

41.7

26.0

17.2

64

A f i v e percent
r e je c t or
cation ,

level

r e j e c t H y p ot h es is

s e x , gr ad e l e v e l ,

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e has been s e l e c t e d t o not
II

re la tiv e

to the v a r ia b le s o f :

c la s s ifi­

y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e and d e g r ee l e v e l .

Tables

4 . 2 thro ugh 4 . 6 p r e s e n t an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r each o f t h e v a r i a b l e s
In Hypothes i s

II.

TABLE 4 . 2
Analysis o f V arian ce:

D is tric t C las s ific a tio n

Source

D. F.

Between Groups
W i t h i n Groups

4
199

3,406.7500
22,895.5000

203

26,302.2500

TOTAL

Sum o f Squares

Mean Squares

F Ratio

85).6875
115.0527

7 .4 0 3

TABLE 4 . 3
Analysis o f V ariance:

Source

D.F.

Between Groups
W i t h i n Groups

I
202

3 3 7 .6 2 5 0
2 5 ,9 6 4 .6 2 5 0

203

2 6 ,3 0 2 .2 5 0 0

TOTAL

Sum o f Squares

Sex

Mean Squares

F Ratio

3 3 7 .6 3 5 0
1 2 8 .5 3 7 7

2 .6 2 7

65

TABLE 4.
A n a l y s t s o f V a r i a n c e : Grade Level

D.F.

Source
Between Groups
W i t h i n Groups
TOTAL

Sum o f Squares

2
201

1 2 4 .7 5 0 0
26,177.5000

203

26.302.2500

F.

Mean Squares
62.3750
130.2363

R atio

1 .479

TABLE 4 . 5
A nalysis o f V arian ce:

Source
Between Groups
W i t h i n Groups
TOTAL

D.F.

Years o f E x p e r i e n c e

Sum o f Squares

3
200

994.5000
25,307.7500

203

2 6 . 302.2500

Hean Squares

F.

R atio

2.6 20

3 3 1 .5000
1 2 6 .5 3 8 7

TABLE 4 . 6
Analysis o f V a ria n c e :

Source
Between Groups
W i t h i n Groups
TOTAL

Degree L e v e l

D .F .

Sum o f Squares

Hean Squares F .

3
200

493.0625
25,809.1875

1 6 4 .3 54 2
1 2 9 .0 4 5 9

203

26.302.2500

S tg n lfle a n t F ratio s o f

1.274

7 . 4 0 3 and 2 . 6 2 0 on t h e v a r i a b l e s o f

school d i s t r i c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e r e s u l t
r e j e c t i o n o f H y p o t h e s is

R atio

In a

II.

P o s t hoc p a i r - w i s e coropf ” I sons w er e made t o d e t e r m i n e t h e

location

66

o f th e d i f f e r e n c e s between groups on th e v a r i a b l e s o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
and y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e .

TABLE 6 . 7
Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f th e F i v e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . '

C la s s !f(c a tio n

Number

Metro-core
C ity
Towns
Urban F r i n g e
Ru ra 1

21
15
50
109
9

TOTAL

206

Mean

Standard D e v ia tio n

70.63
73.07
61.60
70.92
68.11

9.66
10.67
13.10
9.96
6.27

T he re i s a d i f f e r e n c e on th e r a t i n g o f o b j e c t i v e s between t h e
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f m e t r o - c o r e and to wn s, c i t y and towns ,
urban f r i n g e .

towns and

67

TABLE

**.8

S c h e f f e 1 P a i r - w i s e Comparisons:

C1ass i f i c a t i on

F Ra 1 1o

Met r o - c o r e
and C i t y

.1 3 2 5

Me t r o - c o r e
and Towns

2.5055

Me t r o - r n r e
and Urban Fr in g e

.0091

Met r o - c o r e
and Rur al

.0 7 3 6

Ci ty
and Towns

3.2985

C ity
and Urban F r in g e

.1 3 2 6

Ci ty
and Rural

.3 0 0 7

Towns
and Urban F r i n g e

H olt,

C la s s ific a tio n *

6.6697

Towns
and R ur al

.7 0 2 3

Urban F r i n g e
and Rural

.1 6 2 6

*John T. Roscoe, Fundamental Research S t a t i s t i c s , New Y o r k ,
R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , I n c . , 19 6 9 , pp. 23 9-2 61

T a b l e s 6 . 9 and 6 . 1 0 p r e s e n t
va ria b le ,

years of e x p erie n ce .

t h e p a l i —w i s e comparisons on t h e

68

TABLE 4 .9
Means and Standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r Years o f E xp er ie nc e

Years o f Expe rienc e
0
6
II
15

- 5
- 1 0
- 15
~ above

TOTAL

Number

Mean

55
73
37
39

68.36
66.12
7 0 .5 4
71.82

Std.

Dev.

11 .1 7
11 .45
11 .76
10 .4 4

20*4

TABLE 4 . 1 0
Scheffe'

P a i r - w i s e Compar i s o n s :

Years o f Experience
o - 5
and 6 10
0 - 5
and M

-

-

F Ratio

.4145

15

0 - 5
and 15 - above
6 - 1 0
and I I

Years o f Exper tence

15

.27 69

.71 9 6

1.263 7

6 - 1 0
and 15 " above

2.1755

11 - 15
and 15 - above

.08 )9

I n e q u a l i t i e s among th e p a i r - w i s e comparison Is I n d e t e r m i n a t e
u s in g the S c h e f f e '

technique.

69

H y p o th e s is

Hypothesis Tested:
achi ev em en t and t h e r a t i n g
H : r -

There

The d e g r e e o f

t e a c h e r s g i v e t o t h e m in im al o b j e c t i v e s .

freedom used in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f

th e product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s
percent

level

is necessary to r e j e c t
co efficie n ts

i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t

0

o

the f i v e

III

III

Is *»0 ( N - 2 ) .

of sig n ific a n c e *

a c o rre la tio n

th e h y p o t h e s i s .

Table A . I I

f o r each o f

la r g e r than

At
. 30A

shows th e c o r r e l a t i o n

th e n i n e t e e n r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s .

C alculated c o rr e la tio n
o b j e c t i v e s and th e t e a c h e r s '
to r e j e c t H y p o t h e s i s

f o r H y p o t h e s is

c o efficie n ts

fo r

the nineteen

r a t i n g o f the o b j e c t i v e s

resu lt

reading
in a f a i l u r e

111.

Hypothesis

Hypothesis Te ste d:
t i v e s as m ini m al w i l l

IV

The p r o p o r t i o n o f

teachers r a tin g the o b je c ­

not v a r y among th e f i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f school

d is tric ts .
H : P
o

- P ^ - P
1

2

A f i v e percent
or r e j e c t Hypothesis

3

-

P
A

-

P

» 0

5

l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e has been chosen t o n o t r e j e c t

IV.

T a b l e A . 12 p r e s e n t s t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e

among and between th e f i v e school d i s t r i c t

cla s s ific a tio n s .

70

TABLE <1.11
C o rre latio n C o e ffic ie n ts

O b je c t i ves

for

Hean R a t i n g

th e Reading O b j e c t i v e s

A ch 1evement

r

1

*.0 *

71.1*

.*09

2

3-9*

75.6*

.3*6

3

3-3*

71.83

,229

*

3.62

88.38

.0 *0

5

3.9*

61 .0*

.0 2 6

6

3.86

81.35

.221

7

3.76

79.33

.170

8

3.10

71.00

.221

o

3.68

61.00

.1*6

10

3.96

59.59

.306

11

*.0 7

*5 .9 7

.3 0 2

12

3 .*7

52.*5

.123

13

3.80

72.28

.2*3

1*

3.32

6 * . 5*

. 185

15

3.53

70.23

.250

16

3.88

59-57

.196

17

3.37

61 . * 0

-.0 1 5

18

3.0 *

78.38

-.0 9 8

19

3 .**

5? .80

.097

.

71

TABLE 4 . 1 2
A n a lysis o f V arian ce:

S o u rc e

D .F .

Between Groups
W i t h i n Groups

4
291

C l a s s I f t e a t Io n

Sum o f S q u a r e s

H ean S q u a r e s

F R atio

314.3437
4,0 28 .250 0

78 .5859
13-8428

5-477

TOTAL___________ 2£ § __________________________________________________________

A s ig n ific a n t
Hypothesis
lo catio n o f

IV.

A ll

F r a t i o o f 5-877

resu lts

In th e r e j e c t i o n o f

p a t r - w l s e c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e made t o d e t e r m i n e t h e

t h e d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .

shows t h e means and

Table 4 .1 3

s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e f i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and

Table 4 .1 4 p re s e n ts a l l

p a t r - w l s e com parisons.

TABLE 4 . 1 3
Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f

the F iv e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

Number

Mean

S tandard D e v ia tio n

M etro-core
C ity
Towns
Urb an F r i n g e
Rural

50
35
57
113
40

3 .7 8
5.83
2.4 4
4.4 9
3.2 0

3-75
4.4 9
3-05
4.0 5
2 .6 0

TOTAL

u *

C l a s s I f l e e t Ion

..

72

TABLE 4 . I*»
S c h e f f e 1 P a i r - w i s e Com pa riso ns :

C l a s s 1f ( c a t I o n *

F R atio

C la s s i f ( c a t i o n
M e t r o - c o r e and
C ity

.2798

M e t r o - c o r e and
Towns

.1521

M e t r o - c o r e and
Urban F r i n g e

.0555

M e t r o - c o r e and
Rural

.0237

C i t y and Towns

.8066

C i t y and Urban F r i n g e

.1559

C ity

.111 69

and Rural

Towns and
Urban F r i n g e

.1*820

Towns and Rural

.0*31

Urban F r i n g e and
Rural

.1668

*Roscoe,

Fundamental

In e q u a litie s
using

Research S t a t i s t i c s ,

1969

among t h e p a i r - w t s e c o m p a r is o n s

th e S c h e f f e 1 t e c h n i q u e .

is

Indeterm inate

73

DISCUSSION

None o f

the n in e te e n read ing o b j e c t i v e s

by th e H i c h l g a n D e p a r tm e n t o f
according

to the c r i t e r i a

E d u c a t i o n w e r e r a t e d as ,4m l n I m a l " ,

estab lish ed

fo r

The v a r i a b l e s o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
th e

ratin g o f o b je c tiv e s .

d e f i n e d as " m i n i m a l "

th is

study.

and y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e a f f e c t

Prim ary teachers

In schools c l a s s i f i e d

Towns had a l o w e r mean r a t i n g on th e o b j e c t i v e s
class I f t e a t Io n s .

C o rre la tio n c o e ffic ie n ts
resu lted

o b jec tive s

F ra tio s .

c a l c u l a t e d on t h e n i n e t e e n r e a d i n g

In p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s

and s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t on o b j e c t i v e s
N eg ative,

b e tw ee n t h e t e a c h e r s '

1, 2 and

but not s i g n i f i c a n t ,

17 and 19.

test s t a t is t ic

between grou ps on t h e v a r i a b l e o f y e a r s o f

ex p e rie n c e d id not produce s i g n i f i c a n t

o b jec tive s

than the o t h e r f o u r

The c o n s e r v a t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e S c h e f f e *

used t o d e t e r m i n e d i f f e r e n c e s

10.

1 and 2 a r e s i m i l a r

In

s t u d e n t s must be a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e meanings o f words and p h r a s e s .
10 uses p i c t u r e s

pa ss a ge .

Rea ding o b j e c t i v e s

l o c a t e so u r ce s o f

to d e p ic t

t h e main

Towns.

th at
R e a d in g

17 and 18 b o t h e m p h a s i z e t h e a b i l i t y

to

In fo rm a tio n .

fiv e c la s s ific a tio n s
lowest

fo r

Idea o f a given r e a d in g

D i f f e r e n c e s on t h e r a t i n g o f o b j e c t i v e s

was a l w a y s

ra tin g

c o r r e l a t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d

R ea di ng o b j e c t i v e s

o b je c tiv e

as

fo r

o f school

d is tric ts .

The mean r a t i n g o f o b j e c t i v e s

those te a c h e rs c l a s s i f i e d

Those d i s t r i c t s

c la s s ifie d

as R u r a l

d i d e x i s t be tween t h e

In d i s t r i c t s

lo c a te d

a l s o had low mean r a t i n g s .

The d i s t i n c t i o n made between t h e s e two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
on p o p u l a t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

In

Is

base d

used by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Census B u r e a u

7*

and a d o p t e d by t h e M i c h i g a n D ep ar tm en t o f E d u c a t i o n f o r r e p o r t i n g s t u d e n t
achievement

In 1972.

R u r a l may be s i m i l a r

Therefore,

those d i s t r i c t s

i f other va ria b le s

c l a s s i f i e d as Towns and

beyond p o p u l a t i o n a r e c o n s i d e r e d .

SUMMARY

P r i m a r y t e a c h e r s do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e
In t h e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l

reading o b j e c t i v e s

Assessment Pro gr am (g r a d e I*)

tested

t o be " m i n i m a l "

reading o b j e c t i v e s .
The v a r i a b l e s o f school
e x p e r i e n c e do a f f e c t
There
teachers'

the r a tin g

d is tric t

te a c h e rs g i v e t o the re ad in g o b j e c t i v e s .

I s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y

ratin gs

o f the

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and y e a r s o f

s ig n ific a n t

reading o b je c t iv e s

r e l a t i o n s h i p between

and s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The M i c h i g a n D e p a r tm e n t o f E d u c a t i o n
t'-s tin g
This

pr og ra m In 1969 as one phas e

te s tin g

v a l u e th e m in im a l

ment and t e a c h e r s '

ratin g s

t h e 296 t e a c h e r s

studied

(valu e)

o f the M ic hig an Educational

p l a c e d on t h e r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s .

teachers,

from t w e n t y - o n e sc h o o l

c la s s ific a tio n s

p a rtic ip a te d

In th e study.

19 " m i n i m a l " o b j e c t i v e s on a 1 - 5 s c a l e .

Other v a r ia b le s

i n c l u d e d s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t on t h e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l A s s e s s ­

le v e l,

1 9 7 3 ~ 1 97**. t e a c h e r s '

y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e and sc hoo l

E igh ty percent o f the teachers
was e s t a b l i s h e d as t h e c r i t e r i a

sex,

of c la s s ific a tio n ,

sex,

degree

had on t h e r a t i n g s

grade

level »

d is tr ic t c la s s ific a tio n .

r a t i n g an o b j e c t i v e as f i v e

(9)

f o r c l a s s i f y i n g an o b j e c t i v e as m i n i m a l .

A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was used t o d e t e r m i n e what e f f e c t s

taught

d is tric ts ,

Assessment Pro gra m R ea dI ng O b j e c t I v e s t Grade

ment P ro g r a m Reading O b j e c t 1ves
degree

to what degree

resp ond ed t o t h e P r i m a r y T e a c h e r 1s R a t i n g s o f

t h e M i c h i g a n Educat i o n a l
Four by r a t i n g

In

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p be tween s t u d e n t a c h i e v e ­

Two hundred n i n e t y - s i x
fiv e d is t r ic t

to d e te rm in e ( l )

reading s k i l l s

Assessment Pro gram , and ( 2 )

Each o f

i n a S t a t e A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model*

areas.

T h i s s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n

rep res en tin g

a state -w id e

program was d e s i g n e d t o a s s e s s " m i n i m a l " o b j e c t i v e s

the b a s ic s k i l l s

teachers

In itia te d

le v e l,

the v a ria b le s

y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e and g r a d e l e v e l

t e a c h e r s gave t o th e r e a d in g o b j e c t i v e s .

75

76

P e a r s o n ’ s p r o d u c t moment c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d
r e l a t i o n s h i p be tw ee n t e a c h e r s '

t o d e te r m in e the

r a t i n g s o f t h e r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s and

stu d e n t achievem ent.
The f o u r g e n e r a l
1.

h y p o th e s e s

t e s te d were:

C la s s r o o m t e a c h e r s a g r e e

t h a t the Michigan E d u cationa l

Assessment Program r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s a r e m i n i m a l .
2.

S e le c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f classroom te a c h e r s w i l l
have no a f f e c t on t h e v a t u e
t h e m in im o l

3.

There

(ra tin g )

teachers g iv e

to

reading o b j e c t i v e s .

I s a r e l a t i o n s h i p be twe en s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t on

the M ichigan Edu cational

Assessment Program r e a d i n g

o b j e c t i v e s and t h e v a l u e

(ratin g )

t e a c h e r s p l a c e on

the o b j e c t i v e s .
I*.

The v a l u e

(ratin g )

v a r y among t h e f i v e
represented

t e a c h e r s p l a c e on t h e o b j e c t i v e s w i l l
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f sc ho o l

i n th e t o t a l

d is tric ts

po pu latio n .

Cone1 us Io n s
1.

Elem entary teachers

do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l

Ass essment Program R e a d in g O b j e c t i v e s
2.

The t y p e
of

o f school

t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e do e f f e c t

give
3.

(c la s s ific a tio n )

to

t o be m i n i m a l *
d i s t r i c t and t h e y e a r s

the v a lu e

(ra tin g )

teachers

the reading o b j e c t i v e s .

This study f a i l e d

to f in d a s t a t i s t i c a l l y

r e l a t i o n s h i p be tween t e a c h e r s '

ratin g s o f

o b j e c t i v e s and s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .

s ig n ific a n t
the reading

77

k.

The v a l u e

(ra tin g )

t e a c h e r s ga ve t o t h e r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s

d i d v a r y between t h e t y p e

(c la s s ific a tio n )

o f sc hoo l

d is tric t*

DISCUSSION

The r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s

tested

In t h e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n a l A s s e s s ­

ment Program a r e d e s ig ne d t o a s se s s s k i l l s
p r i m a r y school

years.

c o n s i d e r e d as t e r m i n a l
co mp re he n si o n.

The o b j e c t i v e s s e l e c t e d
s k ills ,

T ra d itio n a lly ,

that

Is,

o rie n te d -a c q u lrln g s k ills
in s tru c tio n

reading

i n s t r u c t i o n c o m p re h e n s io n .

schooling

fo c u s e s on s t r u c t u r a l

takes place

s k ill.

S p e c ific a lly , e a rly

th e v a l i d i t y o r a p p r o p r i a t e ­
t o be q u e s t i o n a b l e .

Are

based on w h at s t u d e n t s do

I t appears t h a t th e M ichig an Department

E d u c a t i o n has d e t e r m i n e d w h a t s t u d e n t s s h o u l d know and has c o n t i n u e d

a s se s s s t u d e n t knowledge on a s e t o f o b j e c t i v e s
De p ar tm e nt o f

Education b e lie v e s

that

o b jec tive s

t o be I m p o r t a n t .

have been a c c e p t e d by t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r

exam ination o f

p r i m a r y sc hoo l

emphasis on o b j e c t i v e s

In s tru c tlo n a l

s p e c ific a lly

Elem entary teach ers
i m p o r t a n t b u t n o t m in im a l

to

r e f l e c t wh at t h e

i n s t r u c t i o n based on p r e d e t e r m i n e d o b j e c t i v e s

be

that

to reading

Is c o n s i d e r e d as p r o c e s s

continues

these o b j e c t i v e s

know o r what s t u d e n t s s h o u ld know7

p e rta in

and p h o n e t i c a n a l y s i s and n o t on

Therefore,

reading o b je c t iv e s

t h e measures d e s i g n e d t o t e s t

of

in stru ctio n

lead in g to a te rm in a l

reading

the s t u d e n t 's

f o r a s se s sm en t may be

they g e n e r a lly

much o f t h e

d u ring the e a r l y years o f a s t u d e n t 's

ness o f t h e m i n im a l

acquired d u rin g

in t h i s

re la te d

p rac tice s

Im plies th a t

the

In s tru c tio n .
reveals

An

little

to read in g comprehension.

s t u d y may c o n s i d e r t h e o b j e c t i v e s

I n terms o f t h e i r own i n s t r u c t i o n a l

to

p ra c tic e s .

78

The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s
a re not minimal

s t u d y s u p p o r t Rudman’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e o b j e c t W a s

fo r the grade lev el assessed.

M i c h i g a n ’ s as ses sm ent program has been a s o u r c e o f c o n t r o v e r s y
since

Its

beginning.

The pr og ra m I s a component o f t h e S t a t e Board o f

E d u c a t i o n 's A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model.
has r e c e i v e d

The w h o l e c o n c e p t o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

i n c r e a s i n g c r i t i c i s m e s p e c i a l l y by t h e M i c h i g a n

Education

As soc I a 11 o n .
The minimal o b j e c t i v e s a r e t h e r e f o r e s u b j e c t e d
reactions

th a t are c u r r e n t l y associated w it h

I t may be I m p o s s i b l e t o g e t any k i n d o f
v a lid ity

o f the o b je c t iv e s
The o b j e c t i v e s

" S t a t e ’ s" o b j e c t i v e s ,
fa ct

the case,

as

rated

In d i s t r i c t s

a t a lo w er

level

for

fin a n c ia l

In s e rv lc e
S ma ll

in n o v a tiv e .

term .

If

th is

from a p o l i t i c a l

Is

In

p ersp ective

p e rs p ec tiv e.

c la s s ifie d

as Towns and R u r a l

than did te a c h e r s

D is tric ts

c la s s ifie d

ra te d the

In M e t r o - c o r e .

C itie s or

as Towns and R u r a l

g en erally

In few er d o l l a r s a l l o c a t e d

t o t h e whole o b j e c t i v e s movement.

towns and r u r a l
The school

t h e c o m m u n it y , and t h e r e
a wa rene ss o f

less v a l i d i t y .

r e s o u r c e s wh ich may r e s u l t

related

Judgment a b o u t t h e

In t h i s s t u d y may have been v ie w e d as t h e

co nsequ ently having

Urban F r i n g e d i s t r i c t s .
have l e s s

ra tio n a l

long as t h e y a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s

r a t h e r t h a n from an e d u c a t i o n a l

o b je c tiv e s

the term " a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . "

then t h e o b j e c t i v e s w e r e r a t e d

Teachers

to em otional

d is tric ts

s y st e m o f t e n

re fle c ts

less

In c lin e d

o b j e c t i v e s and l o c a l

d e v e lo p in g o b je c t iv e s which r e f l e c t

lo c a lly

t o be

the c o n s e rv a tiv e n a tu re o f

Is a tendency t o m a in ta in th e s t a t u s

In s tru c tio n a l

f a m i l i a r i t y and s u p p o r t .

a re also

d is tric t

q u o.

An

emphasis on

I d e n t i f i e d needs m i g h t c r e a t e

79

An a d d i t i o n a l

question a s s o c ia te d w ith the

r e a d i n g o b j e c t i v e s migh*~ a g a i n be r e l a t e d
A r e s m al l
lik e ly

d is tric ts

to support

to the

lower r a t i n g o f th e

I n f l u e n c e o f t h e MEA.

such as th ose c l a s s i f i e d as Towns and Rur al more

t h e p o s i t i o n t a k e n by t h e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n ?

The MEA has s t r o n g l y opposed t h e A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e
D ep ar tm e nt o f E d u c a t i o n .
more l i k e l y

to accept

D is tric ts

c l a s s i f i e d as Towns and R u r a l may be

t h e MEA p o s i t i o n

that a c c o u n ta b ility

is b e i n g

forced

upon them by a l a r g e b u r e a u c r a t i c s t a t e a g e n c y .
A la c k o f a c c e p t a n c e by l o c a l

sc hoo l

A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Model may a l s o be a t t r i b u t a b l e
p r o c e d u r e s o f t h e M i c h i g a n D ep ar tm en t o f
n e n t was t h e

in itia l

terms a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
prog ram was w e l l

d is tric ts
to

the past

Education.

im plem entation

The assessment compo-

t h r u s t o f t h e D e p a r tm e n t and as a consequence t h e
and assessment became synonymous.

e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e D e p a r tm e n t o f

was even d e v e l o p e d .

regarding the S t a t e 's

Assessment p r o c e d u r e s were

Common Goals and M i n i m a l

E d u c a t i o n b e f o r e a Model

In o p e r a tio n b e fo re the

O b j e c t i v e s had been w r i t t e n .

o p p o s i t i o n t o th e p r o c e s s d e f i n e d

The assessment

This

In th e S ix Step M odel.

has c o n s e q u e n t l y been f o r c e d t o t r y

Is

In d i r e c t

The D e p a r tm e n t

and c o r r e c t a s s o c i a t i o n s and p e r c e p t i o n s

w h i c h w e r e d e v e l o p e d d u r i n g th e b e g i n n i n g y e a r s o f

t h e assessment p r o g ra m .

IMPLICATIONS

A ll

o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be " m i n i m a l " by t h e M i c h i g a n

D e p ar tm e nt o f E d u c a t i o n .
study

in d ic a te

V a r i a t i o n on t h e

I n t e r r e s p o n d e n t and

the v a lu e o f these o b j e c t i v e s .

It

r a t i n g s by t h e s u b j e c t s

In t h i s

Intrarespondent d iffe re n c e s

re la tiv e

Is q u e s tio n a b le whether a l l

o f the

to

80

o b j e c t i v e s s h o u ld be vi e w e d as e s s e n t i a l l y e q u a l
A fa ilu re

to fin d a p o s itiv e

In

Im portance.

r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t a c h i e v e *

ment and t e a c h e r s '

r a t i n g on t h e o b j e c t i v e s

In t h i s

study.

c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s do n o t v a l u e o b j e c t i v e s ,

u n lik e ly

th at

and,

If

they w i l l

th erefo re,

w ill

Add itio nal
tiv e s
If

r e c e i v e much em ph asi s

have m i n im a l

In t h e I n s t r u c t i o n a l

It

Is

process

Impact on s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .

c o n s i d e r a t i o n on t h e

importance o f the re a d in g o b j e c ­

Is g o i n g t o c o n t i n u e t o d e f i n e

f u r t h e r t e a c h e r s u p p o r t must be c o l l e c t e d
A dd itio nal

d is tric ts

may even have t o m o d i f y t h e i r

If

and t h a t

the

and documented.

Items.

to s e l e c t those o b j e c t i v e s

th e values o f the p r o f e s s io n a l

f a c t mi nim al

local

th at are ap p ro p riate o r

s t a f f and l o c a l
p o sition

they transcend
d is tric t

I t wo uld th en be p o s s i b l e f o r

that

local

community.

d is tric ts

can s e l e c t o b j e c t i v e s

Is h ig h ly p ro b ab le th e o b j e c t i v e s

re fle c t

The D e p a r tm e n t

the p res en t o b j e c t i v e s a r e

p e r s o n a l i z e d and be v ie w ed as " o u r " o b j e c t i v e s

be more a l i k e

t h e o b j e c t i v e s as m i n i m a l ,

o b j e c t i v e s may have t o be d e v e l o p e d w h ic h wo uld c r e a t e

a bank o f o b j e c t i v e s and assessment

It

then

sh ou ld be a h i g h p r i o r i t y o f th e M i c h i g a n D ep ar tm e nt o f E d u c a t i o n .

t h e D epartme nt

lo cal

supports th e research c i t e d

In

boundaries.
th en t h e y may become

r a t h e r than " t h e i r " o b j e c t i v e !

s e l e c t e d by t h e l o c a l

d is tric ts

wo uld

than d i s s i m i l a r .

T h i s s t u d y was d e s c r i p t i v e
Im p lic it

in a t r u e e x p e r i m e n t a l

d irected

to wa rd

In ves tig a tin g

ment and t h e v a l u e

In n a t u r e and l a c k e d some o f t h e c o n t r o l s

design.

Fu ture research e f f o r t s

c o u l d be

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t s '

achieve­

t e a c h e r s p l a c e on t h e o b j e c t i v e s

b o t h c o n t r o l and t r e a t m e n t g r o u p s .

Future

d e t e r m i n e why c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t
p l a c e on o b j e c t i v e s .

In a d e s i g n w h i c h has

res e a rc h should a l s o t r y

the r a t i n g

(value)

that

to

teachers

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A i r a s i a n , P e t e r W . , and Madaus, George P. " C r i t e r i o n - R e f e r e n c e d
T e s t i n g in t h e C l a s s r o o m . "
Measurement In E d u c a t i o n , V o l . 3 ,
No. k , ( M a y , 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 - 7 .
A l k i n , M a r v i n C. " C r i t e r i o n - R e f e r e n c e d Measurement and O t h e r Such
Term s."
Problems In C r i t e r i o n - R e f e r e n c e d M e a s u r e m e n t , CSE
Monograph S e r i e s in E v a l u a t i o n , No. 3 .
Cos A n g e le s : U n i v e r s i t y
o f C a l i f o r n i a , 197*1, 3 “ 1 2 .
A t k i n , J . J . " B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s in C u r r i c u l u m D e s ig n : A C a u t i o n a r y
N o te."
The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r , (May, 1 9 6 8 ) , 2 7 “ 3 0 .
Baker, E v a , L . " E f f e c t s on S t u d e n t A ch iev em en t o f B e h a v i o r a l and
Nonbehavioral O b je c t iv e s ."
U n p u b l is h e d P h . O . d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1969.
B a k e r , E v a , L . " P a r e n t s , T e a c h e r s , and S t u d e n t s as Da ta Sources
th e S e l e c t i o n o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l G o a l s . " A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l
R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , V o l . 9 , No. 3 , (Summer^ 1 9 7 2 ) , *t07- , i 0 9 .

fo r

B e l l , T e r r e l H. " A c c o u n t i n g f o r What Youngsers L e a r n . "
Pape r p r e s e n t e d
a t t h e 1 0 5 t h Annual C o n v e n t i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f
School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a , Ma rch, 1 9 7 3 , I 7 ~ 2 I .
Benson, C h a r l e s , S.
S t a t e and Lo c a l F i s c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s in P u b l i c
E du ca t i o n in Cal 1f o r n l a .
Sac ra m en to : S e n a t e o f t h e S t a t e o f
C a l i f o r n I a , 1965•
Burkhead, J e s s e , Fox, Thomas G; and H o l l a n d , John W. I n p u t and O u t p u t
In L a r g e C i t y S c h o o l s .
S yracu se : Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y Press” 1967.
B u t t s , D a v i d P. " P e r fo rm a n c e O b j e c t i v e s N e c e s s a r y o r S u p e r f l u o u s . "
Pape r p r e s e n t e d a t th e N a t i o n a l S c ie n c e A s s o c i a t i o n C o n v e n t i o n ,
D e t r o i t , M ic h ig a n , A p r i l 2 , 1973B r y a n t , N a p o l e o n , J r . "The E f f e c t s o f P e r f o r m a n c e O b j e c t i v e s in
P r e d o m i n a n t 1y B la c k I n n e r C i t y S c h o o l s . "
U npublished Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a , U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.

Four

C a m p b e ll , D o n a ld T . and S t a n l e y , J u l i a n C.
E x p e r i m e n t a l and Q u a s i Ex pe r i m e n t a l Des igns f o r R e s e a r c h .
C h i c a g o : Rand H c M a l l y and
Company, 1 9 6 6 .
C a r d a r e l I i , A l d o , F r a n c i s . "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e E f f e c t on P u p i l
A c h i e v e m e n t When T e a c h e r s a r e Ass igned and T r a i n e d in t h e Use o f
B ehavioral O b je c tiv e s ."
Unpublished P h.D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , S yracu se,
U n i v e r s I t y , 1971•
81

82

C ll n g m a n , Eva n, E a r l . " E f f e c t o f t h e Use o f B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s
and C r i t e r i o n E v a l u a t i o n on Clas sr oom P r o g r e s s o f A d o l e s c e n t s . "
U n p u b l i s h e d E d .D . d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f Te n n e s s e e , 1971*
Coleman, James S. E q u a l i t y o f E d u c a t i o n a l O p p o r t u n i t y , W a s h i n g t o n ,
O . C . : Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 6 6 , Mo. F S S .2 3 8 : - 3 8 0 0 1 .
Drenn en, R o b e r t , L e e.
"The E f f e c t o f S p e c i f i c P e r f o r m a n c e O b j e c t i v e s
on S t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t , A t t i t u d e , and A t t r i t i o n In Remedial
Mathematics a t J e f f e r s o n S t a t e J u n io r C o l l e g e . "
Unpublished
Ed.D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , Auburn U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 1 .
D u c h a s t e , P h i l i p p e C. and M e r r i l l , P . , F. " B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s
and L e a r n i n g : A R e v ie w o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e . "
Rev iew o f E d u c a t i o n a l
R e s e a r c h , V o l . 1*3, No. I , ( J u n e , 1 9 7 2 ) , 6 1 - 6 9 E d e l , R o b e r t , L,
Kappan, V o l .
French, W i l l .
New Y o r k :

"B e h a v io r a l O b j e c t i v e s : A C lo s e L o ok." Ph1 D e I t a
LI I , No. 3 . (Novem be r, 1 9 7 0 ) , 171 “ 373-

B e h a v i o r a l G o a ls o f Ge n er al E d u c a t i o n
R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 19 57-

G laser, R obert.
Learn in g ."
520-52k.

In High S c h o o l .

" I n s t r u c t i o n a l T e c h n o lo g y and t h e Measurement o f
American P s y c h o l o g i s t , V o l . 1 8 , Mo. 8 , ( A u g u s t , 1 9 6 3 ) ,

House, E r n e s t , R. R i v e r s , W e n d e l l ; and S t u f f l e b e a m , D a n i e l L .
"An
Assessment o f t h e M i c h i g a n A c c o u n t a b i 1 I t y S y s t e m . "
Phi D e l t a
Kappan, V o l . LV, No. 1 0 , ( J u n e , 1 9 7 * 0 . 6 6 3 * 6 6 9 J e n k i n s , J o s e p h , R . , and Denoy, S t a n l e y , F.
" I n f l u e n c e o f Knowledge
and Type O b j e c t i v e s on S u b j e c t - M a t t e r L e a r n i n g . "
Journal o f
E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 6 2 , Mo. 1 , ( 1 9 7 1 ) 6 7 * 7 2 .
K allsh, D a n ie l, M ile s .
" E f f e c t s on S t u d e n t A c h ie v e m e n t o f U s i n g
B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s w i t h F i f t h Grade S t u d e n t s . "
Unpublished
P h .D . d l s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 2 .
Kappan, "T h e F a t h e r o f B e h a v i o r a l
I n t e r v i e w w i t h Ral ph T y l e r . "
( S e p t e m b e r , 1973) 5 * * 5 7 .

O b j e c t i v e s C r i t i c i z e s Them: An
Phi D e l t a Kap pa n , V o l . LV, Mo. 1 ,

K i b l e r , R o b e r t , J . , B a k e r , L a r r y , L . , and M i l e s , D a v i d , T .
B ehavioral
O b j e c t i v e s and I n s t r u c t i o n .
B os ton : A l l y n and Bacon, I n c . , V 9 7 2 .
Loh,

Elmwood, L o c k e r t .
"The E f f e c t o f B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s on
Measures o f L e a r n i n g and F o r g e t t i n g on H i g h School A l g e b r a . "
Unpublished Ph.D. d I s s e r t a t I o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M aryland, 1972.

M ic h ig a n D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a t i o n .
An A ssessm ent o f th e M ic h ig a n
A c c o u n ta b 1 1 I t y S ystem . L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , M a y, l3 7 V .

83

M i c h i g a n D epartme nt o f E d u c a t i o n ,
L o c a l , D i s t r i c t and School R e p o r t :
1972-73L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , M a r c h , 19 73*
M i c h i g a n D epartme nt o f
M ichigan, O ctober,

Education.
1973-

School and D i s t r i c t

R e p o rts : Lansing,

M i c h i g a n D epartme nt o f E d u c a t i o n .
M ichig an, August, 1973.

O b j e c t i v e s and P r o c e d u r e s .

Lansing,

M i c h i g a n Dep artment o f E d u c a t i o n .
M ichigan, August, 1 9 7 *.

O b j e c t i v e s and P r o c e d u r e s .

Lansing,

M i c h i g a n Dep artment o f E d u c a t i o n .
L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , F a l l , 1973-

O b j e c t I v e - R e f e r e n c e d T e s t s A Summary.

M i c h i g a n Dep artment o f
1970-1971.

Education.

Technical

M i c h i g a n D ep artm en t o f
Lansing, M ichigan,

Education.
1970.

The C o r r e l a t e s

Report*

Lansing, M ichigan,

f o r School

Perform ance.

M i c h i g a n D epartme nt o f E d u c a t i o n .
"T h e C r i t e r i o n R e f e r e n c e d T e s t :
Assessment Rased on P r e d e t e r m i n e d O b j e c t i v e s . "
M ichigan E d u c a tio n ,
V o l . * 1 , Mo. 9 , ( J u n e , 1972) 1 - * .
M i c h i g a n E le m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l s A s s o c i a t i o n .
"M ichigan 's E ducational
A c c o u n ta b ility M o del."
The M i c h i g a n E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l .
V o l.
Mo. 2 , ( A p r i l , 1 9 7 * ) -

L,

M e r b o v i g , H a r c e l l a , H an na h .
"Teachers P e rc e p tio n s o f the Fu nctions o f
O b je c tiv e s ."
U n p u b l i s h e d P h .D . d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n ,
19 56.
O a k la n d S c h o o ls .

Summaries and S u r v e y s

197*~1975.

January,

19 75*

O s w a l d , James, M a r l i n .
" I n s t r u c t o r S p e c i f i e d O b j e c t i v e s and A c h ie v e m e n t
o f S o c i a l S t u d i e s Knowledge and C o m p r e h e n s i o n . " U n p u b l i s h e d E d . D .
d i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d , U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
Popham, James, W.
C r i t e r i o n Referenced Measurement.
E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y P u b l i c a t i o n s , 19 71*

New J e r s e y :

Popham, James, W.
" I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Assess ment o f M i n i m a l C o m p e te n ci es
f o r O b je c t ! v e s - O r t a n t e d Teacher E d u catio n Programs."
P r e s e n ta t io n to
t h e American E d u c a t i o n a l R es e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , New O r l e a n s , L o u i s i a n a ,
F e b r u a r y , 1973*
Popham, James, W.
" In s t r u c t io n a l O b je c tiv e s 19 60-1970."
J o u r n a l: National
S o c i e t y f o r Pro gra med I n s t r u c t i o n . V o l . I X , No. 6 , ( J u l y , 1 9 / 0 ) , A - l 1.
Popham, James, W.
" P r o b i n g th e V a l i d i t y o f A rgum ents A g a i n s t b e h a v i o r a l
G o a ls ."
P aper p r e s e n t e d t o th e N a t i o n a l S c ie n c e A s s o c i a t i o n C o n v e n tio n ,
D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , A p r i l , 2 , 1973*

84

P u c k e t t , T e r r y , James.
" I m p l e m e n t i n g and A s s e s s i n g I n s t r u c t i o n v i a
I n s t r u c t i o n a l Systems and B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s . "
Unpublished Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 19 7 1 .
Roscoe, J o h n , T .
Fundamental R e s e a r c h S t a t i s t i c s .
R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , f n c . , I 9 6 9 .

New Y o r k : H o l t ,

Rosner , B e n j a m i n , and Kay, P a t r i c i a , H.
" W i l l t h e P r o m i s e o f C/PBTE
be F u l f i l l e d ? "
Phi D e l t a Kappan.
V o l . LV, No. 5 * ( J a n u a r y , 1 9 7 4 ) ,
289-291.
Rudman, H e r b e r t , C.
"Between Us . .
V o l . L , No. 1, ( F e b r u a r y , 1 9 7 4 ) ,
Rudmar, H e r b e r t , C.
"Between Us .
V o l . L , No. 2 , ( A p r i l , 1 9 7 4 ) .

.

The M i c h i g a n E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l ,

."

The M i c h i g a n E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l ,

S k a g e r , Rodney, W.
"G e n e ra tin g C rI t e r Io n -R e fe r e n c e d T e s ts from O b j e c t l v e s Based A ss ess me nt Systems: U n s o l v e d Problems I n T e s t D e v e l o p m e n t ,
As s em bl y, and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . "
Pro bl e m s In C r i t e r i o n - R e f e r e n c e d
M e a s u r e m e n t . CES Monograph S e r i e s I n E v a l u a t i o n , No. 3 . Los A n g e l e s ,
U n iv e r s ity o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1974, 4 7 -5 8 .
SMberman,

C h a rle s.

C ris is

in

th e Classroom.

New Y o r k :

Random House,

1970.

S m i t h , Eug ene, and T y l e r , R a l p h .
" A p p r a i s i n g end R e c o r d i n g S t u d e n t P r o g r e s s
Phi D e l t a Kappan.
V o l . LV, No. 1, ( S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 7 3 ) , 5 5 * 5 7 .
T h o r n b u r g , S y l v i a , Dubbe.
"An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e E f f e c t s o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l
O b je c tiv e s ."
Unpublished P h .D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s ,
1971.
Webb, A l f r e d , B e r t .
" E f f e c t s o f t h e Use o f B e h a v i o r a l O J b e c t l v e s and
C r i t e r i o n E v a l u a t i o n on C l a s s r o o m P r o g r e s s o f A d o l e s c e n t s . "
Un­
p u b lished Ed.D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Tennessee, 1971.
W o o d r u f f , A s a h e l , D . , and K a p f e r , P h i l i p G.
" B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s and
Humanism I n E d u c a t i o n : A Q u e s t i o n o f S p e c i f i c i t y . "
Educatlonal
Technology. (January, 1 9 7 2 ), 52-53

APPEND I X

P r I mary T e a c h e r 1s Rat I rigs o f t h e
M i c h i g a n E d u c a t I o n a 1 Assessment
Program R ea dI ng O b J e c t I v e s : Grade Four

C la s s ific a tio n :

I,

Grade

1

1eve I :
or
Age g r o u p : ( y r s . )
Degree

le v e l:

It,
2

6

IV ,

V.

3
7

B . A . ____

Teaching e x p e r ie n c e :

III,

8
B .A .

+1 5___

0 - 5 _y r s . _____

M . A .____

M .A . +30____

6 - 1 0 y r s . _____

11-15 y r s .

I 5 ~ a b o v e _____
Sex:

F

INSTRUCTIONS:

M

P ’ ea se r a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g Rea di ng O b j e c t i v e s a c c o r d i n g
t o t h e v a l u e s g i v e n In t h e r a t i n g s c a l e b e l o w .

RATING SCALE:
5 " Very

Im po rtant,

A " Above a v e r a g e
3 “ Average

o r es s e n tia l

Im p o r ta n c e

Importance

2 ” Below a v e r a g e
1 -

c ritic a l,

U nim portant,

Im p o r ta n c e
In ap p ro p riate,

or

Irre le v a n t

RATING SCALE:
5 “ Very Im p o rta n t, c r i t i c a l , o r e s s e n t i a l ;
k • A bove a v e r a g e i m p o r t a n c e ; 3 * A v e r a g e Im p o r t a n c e ;
2 * Below a v e r a g e i m p o r t a n c e ; I * U n i m p o r t a n t , I n a p p r o p r i a t e
or irre le v a n t

MEAP READING OBJECTIVES
O b j e c t i v e Number
1.

Giv en a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e
t h i r d grade l e v e l , th e le a r n e r w i l l
match a s e r i e s o f words In th e
s e le c tio n w ith a p p ro p ria te d e f i n i t i o n s

Grade 4
5

4

3

^

2

_____ _____

2.

Giv en a s e t o f p h r a s e s , th e s t u d e n t
w i l l i n d i c a t e t h o s e p h r a s e s w h ic h h a ve
th e same m ea n in g .___________________________ _________________________

3.

G iv e n a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e t h i r d
g r a d e l e v e l in w h i c h e v e r y f i f t h word
has been r e p l a c e d w i t h a b l a n k , t h e
l e a r n e r w i l l choose t h e e x a c t word
a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e b l a n k space a t
50% a c c u r a c y

_ _ _ _ _ __________________

G iv e n a method o f a r r a n g i n g d a t a t h e
l e a r n e r w i l l i d e n t i f y t h e method
( e . g . , c o l o r , s i z e , Im portance, t i m e ,
e tc .)

_________________________

U.

S.

G iv e n a s e r i e s o f r a n d o m ly p l a c e d
w o r d s , t h e l e a r n e r w i l l be a b l e t o
a l p h a b e t i z e t h e words t h r o u g h t h e
f i r s t three l e t t e r s .

6.

Given a s e r i e s o f re a d in g s e l e c t i o n s
t h e l e a r n e r w i l l I n d i c a t e those
which a r e f a c t u a l .

7.

G iv e n a s e r i e s o f r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n s
t h e l e a r n e r w i l l I n d i c a t e those
which a r e f i c t i o n a l .

8.

Given a re a d in g s e l e c t i o n , th e l e a r n e r
w i l l be a b l e t o I d e n t i f y th e a u t h o r ' s
purpose ( e . g . , p e r s u a s io n , e n t e r t a i n ­
ment, propaganda, e t c . )

9.

G iv e n a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e t h i r d
grade l e v e l , the l e a r n e r w i l l s e l e c t
from a l i s t o f p o s s i b l e t i t l e s t h e one
most a p p r o p r i a t e as t h e t i t l e f o r t h a t
se le c tio n

___ ____________ _____

HEAP Reading O b j .
Page - 2 RATING SCALE: 5 “ Very I m p o r t a n t , c r i t i c a l , o r e s s e n t i a l ;
k ■ Above a v e r a g e i m p o r t a n c e ; 3 “ A v e r a g e i m p o r t a n c e ;
2 “ Below a v e r a g e I m p o r t a n c e ; I ■ U n i m p o r t a n t , I n a p p r o p r i a t e ,
or i r r e l e v a n t

O b j e c t i v e Number

10.

Given a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e t h i r d
grade l e v e l , the l e a r n e r w i l l s e le c t
from a s e r i e s ' o f s t i l l p i c t u r e s the
one p i c t u r e most a p p r o p r i a t e in
d e p i c t i n g t h e main id e a o f t h e
se le c tio n .

5

Given a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e t h i r d
grade l e v e l , th e l e a r n e r w i l l s e le c t
from a number o f s h o r t summaries t h e
one w h i c h b e s t summarizes t h e s e l e c t i o n _______

12.

Given a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t th e t h i r d
g r ad e l e v e l , t h e l e a r n e r w i l l match
a s e r i e s o f d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n s from
th e s t o r y w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r who I s
speaking.

16.

_

Given a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e t h i r d
g r a d e l e v e l , t h e l e a r n e r w i l l choose
from a s e r i e s o f s e n t e n c e s t h a t
s e n t e n c e w h ic h b e s t d e s c r i b e s how a
g i v e n c h a r a c t e r f e e l s I n a s t o r y . _______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1*4. Gi ven a s e l e c t i o n c o n t a i n i n g
f i q u r a t i v e language, th e l e a r n e r w i l l
i d e n t i f y fr o m a s e r i e s o f d e s c r i p t i v e
p h ra s e s t h e p h r a s e t h a t most
a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e s t h e mood
expressed In th e s e l e c t i o n .
15.

2

_______ __________________

I 1.

13.

3

Giv en a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e
t h i r d grade l e v e l , the l e a r n e r w i l l
c o r r e c t l y match a s e r i e s o f causes
w i t h a corresponding s e r ie s o f
effects.
Giv en a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e
t h i r d grade le v e l w i t h th e conclusion
o f the s t o r y d e l e t e d , th e l e a r n e r
w i l l s e l e c t fr o m a s e r i e s o f
p o s s i b l e c o n c l u s i o n s t h e one
most a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e s e l e c t i o n .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

___

___

HEAP R eading O b j .
Page - 3“
RATING SCALE:
5 ■ Very Im p o rta n t, c r i t i c a l , o r e s s e n t i a l ;
4 ■ Above a v e r a g e i m p o r t a n c e ; 3 * A v e r a g e I m p o r t a n c e ;
2 - Below a v e r a g e i m p o r t a n c e ; 1 ■ U n i m p o r t a n t , I n a p p r o p r i a t e ,
or irre le v a n t
O b j e c t i v e Number
17-

5

*

Given a l o c a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n , th e
l e a r n e r w i l l choose f r o m a s e r i e s
o f r e f e r e n c e sour ces w h e re t h a t
ite m w i l l be fo u n d .
-

18.

Given a l o c a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n ab o u t
newspapers, th e l e a r n e r w i l l
s e l e c t w h e r e he wo uld f i n d t h e
an s w e r .

13.

Given a r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n a t t h e
t h i r d grade l e v e l , the le a r n e r
w i l l an sw er c o r r e c t l y a s e r i e s o f
m u l t i p l e choice question s r e l a t i n g
t o m e a n in g s , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s , o r
c o n c l u s i o n s n o t e x p r e s s e d In t h e
se le c tio n i t s e l f .

3

I

1