On the “behaviorality” of behavioral objectives

Abstract

The present analysis was begun as an attempt to develop a formal statement of the criteria used to distinguish between behaviorally and non-behaviorally stated objectives. However, as a result of the analysis the authors have concluded that to categorize descriptive terms as behavioral or non-behavioral is misleading. This paper, then, focuses instead on an alternative model for describing the language of instructional objectives which the authors believe to be more useful than the currently used behavioral model. In addition, data is presented which demonstrates the effectiveness of the alternative model in explaining and predicting the ways in which educators use their language to specify instructional outcomes. We turn first to the widely used behavioral approach to instructional objectives.Curriculum developers with a behavioristic bent have been adamant that instructional objectives should contain a description of the outcomes of instruction in terms of specific observable human behavior (Taber, Glaser, & Schaefer, 1965; Gagne, 1965). Such a demand stems largely from the current emphasis on task analysis in the development of instructional systems which carries with it the requirement that curriculum specialists describe the subject matter competencies to be acquired by the learner (see, for example, Glaser, 1967) in performance terms. The behavioristically oriented task analyst suggests that unless instructional outcomes are described in behavioral terms it is possible neither to specify when that outcome has been achieved (to measure) nor to systematically design the learning conditions most appropriate for achieving that outcome. Clearly, these recommendations and requirements rest on the assumption that human activities are themselves best described as either "behavioral" or %on-behavioral," and, furthermore, that it is possible and appropriate to distinguish between these two types of description.Many psychologists and curriculum developers have taken the position that all of what people can be observed to do is "behavior"; and, thus, that all the terms of the language used to label what people do are "behavioral." It is not clear, however, that the terms or "action words" (Gagne, 1965) most often recommended and used refer directly to observable human behavior. For example, the terms ('write," "say," '(underline," "identify," "differentiate," "classify," and ccsolve" have all been either recommended for, or used in, writing behavioral objectives. Yet, the words "identify" and "solve" certainly do not refer to directly observable behavior in the same sense as terms such as "underline," and "say." Is it that "identify" and "solve" do not actually refer to observable behavior while "underline" and "say" have behavioral referents? Although such a position may be adopted, it will lead to difficulty. The nature of language use is such that most words categorize, and, therefore, will always be something more and something less than the event or events to which they refer. The use of a word to "label" a part...

Using reliable change to calculate clinically significant progress in children with EBD: A BHRS program evaluation.

“…The treatment plans show a family-centered approach to treatment and are written on a developmental level that the family can be full partners in plan creation; they use a functional assessment, including both direct and indirect measures as proposed by Cone (1978); and they represent a comprehensive target area (Cautilli, Riley-Tillman, & Thomas, 2001). Each objective contains five components: a target person, identification of target behavior, identification of conditions under which the behavior is to be displayed, criteria for acceptable performance, and a timeline for achievement (Alberto & Troutman, 1999; Deno & Jenkins, 1967; Mager, 1962).…”

Behavioural objectives ? A critical review

“…Actually, most verbs do not fit comfortably in either category, for reasons that only a sophisticated linguistic analysis would reveal. An interesting experiment by Deno and Jenkins (1969) showed just how difficult it ~s for people to decide whether a verb describes an observable behaviour or not. Eleven teachers were asked to place verbs on a five-point scale from one (clearly observable action, e.g.…”

Objectives and Achievement Measurement: the Congruency Between Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Behavioral Objectives

“…One of the few attempts to systematically investigate the perceived behaviorality of verbs frequently used in statements of instructional objectives (Deno and Jenkins, 1969) used only teachers-plus one administrator-to obtain ratings. While it is certainly interesting to observe the reliability among teachers regarding their judgment of the behaviorality of verbs, it appears that a much more fundamental question concerns the congruence of perceptions between teacher and student as to what achievement behaviors are expected of the student.…”