• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 The problem
 Experimental design
 Results
 Discussion and implication
 Appendices
 Bibliography
 Biographical sketch














Group Title: differential response to behavioral objectives on student achievement in a sex education instructional system /
Title: A differential response to behavioral objectives on student achievement in a sex education instructional system /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098290/00001
 Material Information
Title: A differential response to behavioral objectives on student achievement in a sex education instructional system /
Physical Description: vii, 151 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Baker, Shelton Dennis, 1945-
Publication Date: 1976
Copyright Date: 1976
 Subjects
Subject: Sex instruction -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Learning, Psychology of   ( lcsh )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 145-149.
Statement of Responsibility: by Shelton Dennis Baker.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098290
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000176195
oclc - 03060660
notis - AAU2673

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

differentialresp00bake ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
    Abstract
        Page vi
        Page vii
    The problem
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
    Experimental design
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Results
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
    Discussion and implication
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Appendices
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
    Bibliography
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
    Biographical sketch
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
Full Text

















A DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE TO BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES
ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN A SEX EDUCATION
INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM




BY



SHELTON DENNIS BAKER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1976
















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The author wishes to express his gratitude to his chairperson,

Dr. John J. Koran, Jr., for his guidance and assistance and to the

members of his committee, Dr. James D. Casteel, Dr. Thomas C. Emmel,

Dr. Vynce A. Hines, Dr. Mary L. Koran, and Dr. Joseph J. Shea for

their encouragement and helpful suggestions.

Special thanks is also extended to the administrators, teachers,

and students at P. K. Yonge Laboratory School for their cooperation

and assistance in this research project.

Special thanks is also extended to Sue Legg for her assistance

in computer programming and advice in the preparation of the data

for analysis.

The author wishes to dedicate this book to his wife, Shirley,

whose understanding attitude and valuable assistance made the writing

of this dissertation possible.

Lastly, the author wishes to thank his parents, Mr. and Mrs.

Shelton Baker, for their encouragement and support of his education

for the past thirty years.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . ... . . . ..

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . vi

CHAPTER
I THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . ... .. 1

Statement of Purpose. . . . . . . . 1
Background to the Problem . . . . ... 1
Related Theory and Research . . . . . . 4
Comparison of Specific Objectives, General
Objectives, and No Objectives on Student
Achievement. . . . . . . . . . 4
Behavioral Objectives and Learning Levels. . 9
Behavioral Objectives and Learner Aptitudes. .. 11
Review of studies . . . . . ... 12
Behavioral Objectives and Mathemagenic Research. 15
Summary and Discussion . . . . . . 23
Statement of Hypotheses. . . . . . . 26

II EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, ..... ... .. . . 28

The Design. . . . . . . . ... .. 28
Aptitude Measurements . . . . . .... .30
Treatment Procedures. ............... 31
Subjects . . . . . . . . . 31
General Procedures . . . . . . .. 33
Treatment Materials . . . . . . . .. 34
Textual Material . . . . . . . . 34
Behavioral Objectives. . . . . . . 35
Treatment I Specific Behavioral Objectives
Placed Within/Before Textual Material . .. 35
Treatment II Specific Behavioral Objectives
Placed After Textual Material . . ... 36
Treatment III All Specific Behavioral Objec-
tives Placed Before Textual Material ... 36
Treatment IV All Specific Behavioral Objec-
tives Placed After Textual Material ... . 37
Treatment V Control Group. . . . . . 38
The Posttest . . . . . . . . . 38










CHAPTER I Page
III RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Independent and Dependent Variables . . ... 40
Aptitude x Treatment Interactions . . . ... 42
Aptitude Measures ............... 42
Evaluation for Aptitude x Treatment Interaction. 42
Instructional Treatment Main Effects. . . .. 49
Testing of Hypotheses for Main Effects .... 51

IV DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION . . . . . .... .56

Summary of Data: Hypotheses Tests. ....... 56
Instructional Treatment Main Effects . ... . 57
Research Hypothesis Number One. . . ... 57
Research Hypothesis Number Two. . . ... 59
Research Hypothesis Number Three. . . .. 60
Research Hypothesis Number Four ..... . 60
Research Hypothesis Number Five ..... . 61
Research Hypothesis Number Six. . . .. 62
Aptitude x Treatment Interaction . . ... 63
Discussion of Findings . . . . .... .64
Implications of Findings for Future Studies . .. 67
Summary . . . . . . . . ... . 68

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

APPENDIX
A APTITUDE MEASURES. . . . . . . . . ... 70
B BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES TRAINING MATERIALS . . . 80
C COMPLETE TEXTUAL MATERIALS WITHOUT OBJECTIVES . 85
D TREATMENT I: SAMPLE OF MATERIALS. . . . . .. 100
E TREATMENT II: SAMPLE OF MATERIALS . . . ... 105
F TREATMENT III: SAMPLE OF MATERIALS. . . . ... 112
G TREATMENT IV: SAMPLE OF MATERIALS . . . ... 119
H POSTTEST OF RELEVANT AND INCIDENTAL INFORMATION. . 125
I RELIABILITY AND DIFFICULTY OF POSTTEST QUESTIONS . 136
J INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG INDEPENDENT MEASURES AND
DEPENDENT MEASURES. . . . . . . ... . 139
K ABSTRACT OF BAKER (1976) STUDY . . . . ... 140

BIBLIOGRAPHY . ... . . . . . . . . . 145

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . .... . . . 150















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE Page
1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. . . . . . . . .... .29

2 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY SEX AND GRADE LEVEL. ... 32

3 INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES. . . . . ... 41

4 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR APTITUDE MEASURES. .. 43

5: F TABLE FOR TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF APTITUDE X TREAT-
MENT INTERACTION BETWEEN VOCABULARY SCORES AND MEMORY
SCORES WITH THE RELEVANT TEST QUESTIONS (1-18) ... . 45

6 F TABLE FOR TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF APTITUDE X TREAT-
MENT INTERACTION BETWEEN VOCABULARY SCORES AND MEMORY
SCORES WITH THE INCIDENTAL TEST QUESTIONS (19-36) . 46

7 F TABLE FOR TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF APTITUDE X TREAT-
MENT INTERACTION BETWEEN VOCABULARY SCORES AND MEMORY
SCORES WITH THE TOTAL TEST QUESTIONS (1-36). . . ... 47

8 F TABLE FOR TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF APTITUDE X TREAT-
MENT INTERACTION BETWEEN CURVILINEAR VOCABULARY SCORES
WITH RELEVANT TEST QUESTIONS (1-18), INCIDENTAL TEST
QUESTIONS (19-36), AND TOTAL TEST QUESTIONS (1-36) . 50

9 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ONE WAY ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE . .. 53

10 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR RELEVANT, INCIDENTAL,
AND TOTAL POSTTEST QUESTIONS . . . . . . 54









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE TO BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES
ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN A SEX EDUCATION
INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM

By

Shelton Dennis Baker

December, 1976

Chairman: Dr. John J. Koran, Jr.
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction


The central purpose of this study was to examine the differences in

learning achievement attributable to the differential placement of behav-

ioral objectives in textual material. An additional purpose of the study

was to examine the interaction between certain learner characteristics

and the various behavioral objectives treatments.

Instructional materials on birth control and sexual anatomy were

modified by placing behavioral objectives either before, within, or after

written textual material. It was expected that these variations in treat-

ment conditions would influence the acquisition of both relevant and in-

cidental information contained in the textual material.

One hundred and ten subjects were randomly assigned to one of four

treatment groups or a control group. A posttest only, control group

design was used. Subjects were given aptitude tests representing verbal

and memory abilities in addition to the treatment materials and posttest

criterion measures. Posttest measures included performance on questions

relevant to the behavioral objectives and performance on questions which

were not relevant to the objectives but could be answered from the tex-

tual material (incidental questions).
vi









It was anticipated that learner aptitudes would differentially

affect learner performances under different treatment conditions.

Support for proposed research hypotheses was dependent on the effective-

ness of behavioral objectives as devices to elicit attending behaviors

from students as they read textual material. Analyses of the data did

not reveal significant main effects or significant interations between

aptitude variables and instructional treatments. The research hypotheses

were therefore not supported. Possible reasons for the ineffectiveness

of the various behavioral objectives treatments included:

1. The objectives, rather than acting to focus students' attention

on relevant information may have interfered with their attending

efforts.

2. The nature of the materials in this study may have been very

stimulating. Therefore, it is possible that all parts of the

material were given equal attention regardless of the presence

or placement of written behavioral objectives within the mate-

rial.

3. Students may not have fully understood how to use the objectives

as a studying device because of the possible inadequacy of a

brief training program conducted prior to the experiment which

was designed to orient students to objectives.

4. Students who participated in the study have been exposed to a

relatively unstructured learning environment and therefore have

developed personalized learning styles. These students may have

disregarded the utilization of a learning strategy made possible

with objectives in favor of their own personalized learning

styles.















CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Statement of Purpose


The central purpose of this study was to examine the differences in

learning achievement attributable to instructional treatments in which

the location of behavioral objectives was varied in relation to the text

materials. An additional purpose of the study was to examine the inter-

actions between certain learner aptitudes and the-behavioral objectives

treatments.

Instructional materials were modified by placing behavioral ob-

jectives either before, within, or after written material. It was ex-

pected that these variations in treatment conditions would differen-

tially influence the acquisition of both relevant and incidental infor-

mation contained in the textual material. Furthermore, it was antici-

pated that learner aptitudes would differentially affect learner perfor-

mance under different conditions.


Background to the Problem

The history of behavioral objectives has been briefly reviewed by

Eisner, (1967). His review described the interest, development and uti-

lization of objectives since the beginning of the 20th Century. Beginning

in the twenties and continuing into the sixties, educators including

Charters (1923), Tyler (1934), Mager (1962), and Popham (1969) have been

among those whose influence has promoted the use of objectives in con-
1









nection with educational programs.

Historically, the value of behavioral objectives has been a con-

troversial issue among educators. Evidence of the controversy is

reflected in the literature by articles such as "Behavioral Objectives?

Yes" (Gagne, 1972) and "Behavioral Objectives? No!" (Kneller, 1972).

Gagne (1972) stated that behavioral objectives are necessary in order to

communicate expectations to students, to aid in design of learning tasks

and to evaluate the outcomes of educational experiences. Others advo-

cating the utilization of behavioral objectives in the planning, design

and evaluation of instruction include: Bloom (1956), Walbesser (1963),

Krathwohl (1965), Kurtz (1965), Montague and Koran (1969), Glaser (1969),

and Sharpe (1969). Implicit in these arguments is the assumption that

given objectives, student learning will be enhanced..

George Kneller (1972) has stated that the behavioral objectives

approach is based on assumptions about human behavior that are reduc-

tionist, deterministic and physicalistic. He further stated that the

behavioral objectives approach contradicts the view that learning is

self-directed, unstructured, and in a large part unpredictable. Others

who have questioned certain aspects of the use of behavioral objectives

include Atkin (1968), Ebel (1970), Eisner (1967) and Combs (1972). Their

concerns are concentrated in the areas of curriculum planning, individ-

ualization of instruction, student-teacher creativity and worthwhile

goals of education. In answer to the critics of behavioral objectives,

Popham (1969) has responded in a paper entitled, "Probing the Validity

of Arguments Against Behavioral Goals," in which he responded to reasons

educators have given for their opposition to behavioral objectives.

Popham included the following reasons for his support of behavioral









objectives.

1. Written objectives make it possible for the teacher to

evaluate the worth of his/her instructional goals.

2. Written objectives contribute to the centering of unplanned

classroom discussion toward worthwhile goals.

3. Written objectives permit the meaningful evaluation

of changes in student cognitive behavior which is a

primary responsibility of the schools.

4. Written objectives make efficient instruction possible.

5. Written objectives permit teachers to evaluate themselves

in reference to changes in observable student behaviors.


The arguments for and against behavioral objectives have not con-

centrated directly on the issue of effect on student achievement, but

have focused on indirectly related issues such as curriculum planning,

teacher direction, and evaluation. However, some investigators have

turned to research to examine the relationship between behavioral ob-

jectives and student achievement. A review of this research will appear

in this paper under the heading entitled, Related Theory and Research.

In general, studies conducted to determine the effect of behavioral

objectives on student achievement have produced inconclusive findings.

These studies have examined independent variables including specificity

of objectives, learning level of objectives, learner aptitudes, and

density of objectives relevant to sentences in textual material. Many

of these studies have been plagued by improper experimental designs and

insufficient thought regarding the role which behavioral objectives play

as aids to learning. The number of studies which have been conducted










with adequate design and control are few in number, so that few gen-

eralizations about the effects of objectives can be made at this time.



Related Theory and Research


The studies reviewed in this paper have been grouped into four

categories. The first group of studies deals with investigations which

were conducted to determine the effects of specific, non-specific ob-

jectives, and no objectives on student achievement.. The second category

deals with studies which assessed the effects of objectives on various

levels of learning. The focus of the third category was on studies

which were conducted to investigate the interactive effects between

certain student aptitudes and a behavioral objectives treatment. A

fourth category deals with studies in which the effects of questions or

behavioral objectives placed in textual material have been evaluated as

elicitors of student attention and the subsequent achievement facili-

tated by those attending behaviors.



Comparison of Specific Objectives, General Objectives, and No Objectives
On Student Achievement


This first group of studies reviewed investigated the hypothesis

that students who received objectives which were written in specific

behavioral terms prior to instruction would learn more, as measured by

an objectives based test, than students who either received no objec-

tives or objectives written in general (non-specific) terms. The latter

resembling what are commonly called instructional goals.









Doty (1968) conducted a study to assess the treatment effects, of

prior knowledge of objectives on a unit in which students were tested

on reading and calculating the value and tolerance of carbon axial

resistors. Students were randomly assigned to a group which received

prior knowledge of objectives or a group which did not receive objectives.

A pretest was administered to:all students. Students who had prior

knowledge of the behavioral objectives scored significantly higher on a

posttest than students who did not receive objectives. However, the

experimental design did not permit the researcher to determine the pre-

test effects on achievement.

A study conducted by Bishop (1969) was not supportative of the

facilitative effects of behavioral objectives. Intact vocational agri-

culture classes were randomly assigned to a behavioral objectives treat-

ment group or a no-objectives control group. The behavioral objectives

groups were exposed to objectives prior to instruction. All groups took

a pretest, received classroom instruction, and took a posttest and re-

tention test. An analysis of covariance was used to analyze the data

for comparison of performance scores. Students who received prior ex-

posure to objectives failed to achieve at a significantly higher achieve-

ment level as measured by both the posttest and retention tests.

Another study (Olsen, 1973) supported the facilitative effects of

objectives on achievement and retention. Fourteen intact ninth grade

physical science classes were randomly assigned to the experimental or

control groups. Eight classes received instruction in physical science

but did not receive behavioral objectives. The experimental group re-

ceived 36 objectives and assessment tasks which corresponded to each

objective. At the end of a three-month instructional period all










students were given a 50-item posttest. A 50-item retention test was

also administered three weeks after the posttest. The experimental

.classes attained significantly higher mean scores than the control

classes ,on both the achievement and retention tests.

The results of the Olsen study should be interpreted with caution.

It is not clear that the posttest measured mastery of the objectives.

There was also the uncontrolled effect of the assessment tasks received

by the experimental groups but not received by the control groups. The

assessment tasks were therefore an uncontrolled variable which may have

facilitated the greater achievement by the experimental group.

Baker (1969) compared the achievement of students assigned to

teachers who were either provided with a list of behavioral or non-

behavioral objectives. The 18 social science teachers who participated

in the study were instructed to teach the objectives during two instruc-

tional periods after which a posttest was administered. No significant

differences were found when group means on the posttest were compared.

The author reported that teachers' faulty understanding of the need for

a congruent relationship between objectives, content, and test items

probably accounted for the lack of achievement differences among groups.

Dalis (1970) compared the effects of precisely written objectives

and generally stated objectives on student achievement in a three week

unit on health. Prior to instruction, treatment groups received an

orientation to the use of objectives. The precisely written objectives

group scored significantly higher on a posttest than did the generally

stated objectives group. The study supported the hypothesis that

students who received specifically written objectives and instruction

regarding their use were able to match relevant learning activities to

instructional objectives.









An investigation conducted by Tiemann (1968) supported the findings

of the Dalis study. His study investigated the effects of providing

general objectives or specific objectives to two treatment groups in a

college economics course. Significant effects between treatment groups

were not found on mid-term test scores. However, when the two groups

were compared on final examination scores the behavioral objectives group

scored significantly higher. In the opinion of this author, the mid-term

test items may have acted as cues to orient the students as to how the

objectives were to be used. The group which received specific objectives

was then able to look at objectives and accurately predict the content

of the final examination questions. Therefore, when attending to content

material, their attention would be directed and focused on information

relating to the specific behavioral objectives.

A study conducted by Boardman (1970) compared groups which either

received objectives or a placebo prior to instruction or independent

study. An analysis of variance procedure revealed no significant differ-

ences in the achievement among groups. However, a correlation analysis

showed that with the group that studied independently, performance was

definitely related .to the students' understanding of the use of objectives.

Boardman (p.3268A) went on to state, "There was a definite indication

that students need instructions in the use of behavioral objectives.

This help needs to be more than mere printed instructions if the objec-

tives are to be of significant value in enhancing learning."

The additional dimension of orientating teachers to behavioral

objectives in addition to providing students with specific objectives

prior to instruction was investigated by Bryant and Anderson (1972).

Teachers were divided into two groups. One group received instruction









on the preparation and use of behavioral objectives. The other group

received no instruction and did not utilize objectives in teaching.

Pupils were divided into groups whose teachers either received objectives

or did not receive objectives. In addition, some pupils were given ob-

jectives prior to beginning instruction and some did not receive objec-

tives. Pupils of trained teachers performed significantly better on a

criterion posttest than did pupils of untrained teachers. However, no

significant differences of achievement was measured between students who

received objectives and those who did not receive objectives.

Jenkins and Deno (1971) investigated the effects on achievement of

both the teachers and students having prior knowledge of behavioral ob-

jectives. Teachers were randomly assigned to one of four experimental

groups (1) general or specific objectives; and (2) teacher only or teacher

and student knowledge of objectives. Students received either general or

specific objectives and received teacher instruction or studied independ-

ently. No significant differences among treatment groups were found on

a 56-item posttest. The authors hypothesized that the non-significance

between groups was possibly due to the highly structured content material

or that the objectives received inadequate attention from teachers and

students.

Jenkins' and Deno's hypothesis regarding the effects of high struc-

tured content material was supported in studies conducted by Weinberg

(1970) and Smith (1967). In both studies significant differences between

objectives groups and no-objectives groups were not measured after

students had been exposed to highly structured materials and instruction.

A study conducted by Coleman and Fowler (1973) also indicated that

the facilitative effects of behavioral objectives are negated by a highly









structured instructional system. Freshman in a physical science class

were randomly assigned to a behavioral objectives treatment or a no-ob-

jectives treatment during a 12-week period. Students in both groups were

intermixed in the same classrooms and therefore both groups received the

same instruction. The experimental group received written objectives

prior to instruction while the control group received a written placebo

before instruction. The authors reported that both groups were unaware

of the experiment. It is assumed that both groups were compared on one

12-week examination. No significant difference was reported. Although

details regarding important aspects of the study were not reported, it

was stated that the nonsignificant differences in test achievement could

be attributed to the highly structured nature of the physical science

program in the study.

In summary, approximately one half of the reviewed studies revealed

significant positive effects on student achievement due to the availabil-

ity of specifically written behavioral objectives. The key factor which

appears to enhance student performance is the orientation of the student

to the use of objectives before instruction begins. Factors which appear

to negatively interact with the effects of behavioral objectives include

highly structured instructional programs and pretest effects.


Behavioral Objectives and Learning Levels

The studies reviewed in this second category include investigations

which determined the effects of behavioral objectives on various levels

of learning as defined by Bloom et al. (1956).

According to Duchastel and Merrill (1973), a study by Oswald and

Fletcher (1970) investigated the effects of objectives on two levels of










achievement. In that study students were assigned to a specific objec-

tives group or a general objectives group. Within those groups, students

received either knowledge level objectives or comprehension level objec-

tives. After receiving objectives, students read content material for

25 minutes. No significant differences were found between groups on a

40-item posttest or an identical retention test which measured "knowledge"

and "comprehension" levels of the content material.

A study conducted by Stedman (1973) investigated the effectiveness

of providing high school students with objectives of various cognitive

levels prior to a programmed unit on genetics. The objectives repre-

sented four cognitive levels including: (1) knowledge; (2) compre-

hension; (3) application and (4) analysis. One hundred and forty-four

high school students were randomly assigned to one of four treatments

including: no objectives, general objectives, and two forms of specific

objectives. The posttest consisted of 28 items; seven items for each

cognitive level. Posttest results revealed no significant differences

between groups on any of the four cognitive levels. The author hypoth-

sized-that the highly structured nature of the learning materials may

have interfered with any effects attributable to the objectives.

Unlike the previous two studies, Papay (1971) found objectives to

be more effective with one cognitive level than another. In this study

229 introductory psychology students were assigned to one of twelve

treatment groups or one of four control groups. Treatments included

questions, advance organizers or behavioral objectives. As Duchastel

and Merrill (1973) pointed out, the objectives were more effective for

retention of knowledge level information than for retention of compre-

hension level information. All students in this study took a pretest










and, therefore, pretest effects were not measured.

In summary, the extent to which behavioral objectives influence

various cognitive levels of learning has not been determined at this

time. A definite need exists for conducting more research studies in

this area. Such studies are especially important because a frequent

criticism of the use of objectives is that teachers seldom write objec-

tives to measure more than factual knowledge.



Behavioral Objectives and Learner Aptitudes


An aptitude may be defined as "any characteristic of the individual

that facilitates or inhibits his learning from some designated instruc-

tional method"(Koran and MacKenzie, 1972, p.45). According to Snow and

Solomon (1968):


The term "aptitude" refers to any individual difference variable
which functions selectively with respect to learning, that is,
which appears to facilitate learning in some students and some
instructional treatments. The term does not mean "general mental
ability" (pp. 347-348).


Examples of learner aptitudes can include visual accuity, intelligence

quotient, prerequisite knowledge, vocabulary achievement, and short or

long term memory.

A continuous problem encountered by educators is that of designing

instruction to meet the learning needs of large numbers of individuals

possessing dissimilar aptitudes or abilities. A common strategy has

been to seek the one best method of instruction and to utilize it with

all students. However, when a group of students engage in a single

mode of instruction it is reasonable to believe that some students will









possess certain aptitudes that facilitate their achievement while other

students will possess aptitudes that either fail to facilitate achieve-

ment or inhibit achievement. Cronbach (1957) has argued:


Treatments are characterized by many dimensions; so are persons.
The two sets of dimensions together determine a payoff surface
. Ultimately we should design treatments not to fit the
average person, but to fit groups of students with particular
aptitude patterns which correspond to modifiable aspects of
the treatment (p. 681).


An implication of Cronbach's statement is that educators should take

advantage of possible facilitative interactions between learner aptitudes

and instructional treatments. "A review of the literature provides both

theoretical and empirical support for the position that a person may

learn more easily by one method than another, that this best method

differs from student to student, and that such differences are related

to learner characteristics" (Koran and Mackenzie, 1972, p. 45). There-

fore a task for educators is to match instructional treatments with

certain learner aptitudes in order to optimize the learner's opportunity

to achieve maximum learning.



Review of studies


In the following reviewed studies investigators attempted to deter-

mine which learner aptitudes interacted with a behavioral objectives

treatment to optimize learning for selected groups of students.

The effects of presenting students with objectives and a learning

hierarchy for a unit of instruction to students of three ability levels

was investigated by Cook (1969). Eighty-eight elementary education

majors were given ten self-instructional mathematics booklets during an










8-day period. Subjects were assigned to one of four groups: (1) a

control group, (2) an objectives group, (3) a learning hierarchy-outline

group, and (4) an objective-hierarchy group. Subjects were blocked into

three ability groups according to their grade in a previous math course.

Performance tests given immediately after the instructional units revealed

no significant differences among the four treatment groups. Middle level

ability students profited more from the behavioral objectives-learning

hierarchy treatment than did the low or high ability students, however,

the author did report:that the interaction was significant. The author

hypothesized that the non-significance between treatment groups could

have been attributable to the high degree of structure of the content

material in addition to lack of control of possible communications

between individuals in treatment groups.

Students of three ability levels received either objectives and

science materials or no objectives and science materials and were then

compared on achievement in a study conducted by Colon (1970). Students

were blocked (high, medium, low) on the California Test of Mental Matur-

ity. The performance of the behavioral objectives group was superior

to the control group,on a standardized achievement test designed for the

science program used but differences between groups were not statis-

tically significant. There was also no significant interactive effects

between.ability levels and treatments.

Kueter (1970) investigated the effects of personality factors on a

teaching strategy which included either objectives or no-objectives.

Middle school students were blocked-on fourteen personality factors and

then randomly assigned to an objectives group or a no-objectives group.

All subjects observed a 10-minute film entitled, "The Monarch Butterfly,"









and took a recognition test immediately afterward. An identical test

was given one week later. The behavioral objectives group scored sig-

nificantly (.01 level) higher on both tests. However, the behavioral

objectives treatment did not significantly influence the achievement

of any particular personality type.

Merrill and Towle (1972) conducted a study which assessed the

effects of presenting instructional objectives to students in a graduate

computer-managed course. Thirty-two subjects were divided into either

a behavioral objectives or a no-behavioral objectives group. The

authors hypothesized that the availability of behaviorally stated ob-

jectives would reduce test item response latency, increase study time,

and reduce "state anxiety." Differences on the posttest were not ex-

pected because subjects.were required to reach criterion on each learn-

ing task.. Significant differences were not revealed between groups on

unit test scores, study time, or test item response latency. However,

there was a significant reduction in the "state anxiety" level of the

behavioral objectives group, which could mean that the objectives

actually interacted with instruction utilizing behavioral objectives.

In only one study (Cook, 1969) was an aptitude x treatment inter-

action found between learner characteristics and a behavioral objectives

treatment. In that particular case the aptitude was a previous grade

achieved in a math course. Cook gave no evidence that the math grades

were based on statistically reliable tests. In addition, the statistical

procedures for determining that an interaction was found were not given.

It is evident that the choosing of aptitude measures for use in the

studies reviewed has not been carefully rationalized. The effects to which

learner aptitudes interact with behavioral objectives to produce student

achievement requires more investigation before conclusions can be drawn.









Behavioral Objectives and Mathemagenic Research


Ernst Rothkopf (1966) has called questions inserted in reading mate-

rial "test like events" which elicit inspection behavior by the learner.

Rothkopf has termed these inspection behaviors "mathemagenics." The

roots of the term are "mathma", which.means that which is learned and

"gegnesthai" which means to be born.

In general, anything which acts to make a student attend to instruc-

tional material can be considered a mathemagenic device. In the studies

reviewed, behavioral objectives potentially functioned to assist students

to focus their attention on instructional stimuli, provided certain

conditions were met. These-conditions included: (1) a student's abil-

ity to remember the behavioral objectives throughout an instructional

period and (2) a student's knowledge of how to utilize behavioral objec-

tives as aids to learning. Behavioral objectives are therefore mathema-

genic devices as they elicit an inspection/attending behavior by the

student.

Several studies have explored the facilitative learning effects of

questions inserted in textual material as "mathemagenic" devices. These

studies are relevant to any future investigations of the facilitative

effects of behavioral objectives placed in textual material because both

mathemagenic devices elicit similar attending responses by the learner.

Rothkopf (1966) conducted a study which investigated the effects of

questions in written material that hypothetically acted to elicit mathe-

magenic activities by students. Questions followed by different condi-

tions of response and feedback were placed either before or after prose

passages within textual material. Experimental groups were compared on

two posttests. One posttest (relevant learning test) consisted of the









same specific questions (14 questions) used within the treatment mate-

rials. The other posttest (incidental learning test) was composed of 25

questions which were not used within the treatment materials. Questions

placed before passages in the written material had facilitative effects

only for the relevant learning test. Questions placed after passages

had facilitative effects for both relevant and incidental learning. A

control group which received no questions and no instructions attained

the lowest achievement of all groups. A Direction Reference Group (DRG)

was treated exactly as the control group except they received directions

to read slowly and carefully and that the information they were to read

contained many facts. The DRG scored higher than all other groups on the

incidental test. This study provides evidence that questions, asking for

specific factual information placed before reading material facilitates

learning of the material on which the learner's attention has been focused

by the question. It also provides evidence that questions which focus

the reader's attention on specific content inhibits the learning of inci-

dental information.

A study conducted by Frase (1967) supported the finding of Roth-

kopf's investigation. In the Frase study questions were placed either

before or after each passage was read and the length of the passages was

varied. Like Rothkopf, Frase found that placing questions after the prose

passages created optimal conditions for both specific (relevant) and gen-

eral (incidental) retention and that questions placed before prose pas-

sages facilitated retention of relevant information, but such questions

may have depressing effects on the learning of incidental information.

A later study by Frase (1968) also demonstrated the facilitative










effects of questions placed before written material. In this study 84

educational psychology students were assigned to one of three experi-

mental groups. All subjects received a question before reading a 36

word passage containing factual information about people's birth dates

and occupations. Questions were one of three types for each group: (1)

specific (2) comparative or (3) general. Although the questions were

of three types, they all required the subjects to read for factual in-

formation. Subjects were compared on a multiple choice test of 9 items.

Respectively the means for the specific, comparative and general group

were 4.75, 4.25 and 3.25. The author explained the results of the study

as follows:


. Subjects were forced to respond discriminately to the
stimuli when irrelevant components were added.
Questions can be used effectively because they function
to control subjects attention. Berlyne (1965) maintains that
attention is a negative process-- it consists of information
rejection. A precise question, such as asking for the name of
an author, date of birth, etc., might allow subjects to ignore
all but one sentence of a reading passage. If the question
were more general, for instance, asking which of two authors
was born earlier, subjects would have to take more of the
information into account in order to answer the question.
Schroder, Drive, and Streufert (1967) also emphasize the view
that information rejection is a concomitant of attention. They
point out that subjects "filter" inputs (by rejecting certain
information), and that more filtering will occur as the inform-
ation load is increased. Information load may increase to a
point at which subjects will abbreviate the task at hand,
adopting what may seem to be an optimal strategy. Under high
load, for instance in a lengthy connected discourse task in
which reading behaviors are not precisely controlled, overall
retention of the passage would decrease if subjects adopted
a strategy which omitted some necessary step, such as practicing
stimuli, practicing responses, or associating the two (p. 199 ).


The studies reviewed thus far have dealt with the facilitative

effects of questions which elicit search and recall of factual inform-

ation. A possible generalization can be made from these studies that









questions inserted in written material which require recall of factual

information do indeed facilitate the learning of factual information.

The questions utilized in the studies reviewed thus far are class-

ified at the level of "knowledge learning" according to Bloom et al.

(1956). A study conducted by.Watts and Anderson (1971) found that

questions inserted in reading material which required responses at the

application level of learning did indeed facilitate learning responses

at the application level. The application level questions also facil-

itated learning at the comprehension and knowledge levels of learning.

Although in the Watts and Anderson study questions were placed only after

written material, the results of the study do permit one to speculate

that the level of questions placed before prose passages can influence

the level of learning that occurs as the learner reads.

Watts and Anderson (1971) have referred to questions in textual

material as "forward shaping" devices and "backward review" devices.

"Forward shaping" questions (questions placed before textual passages)

are assumed to act as cues which direct the learner's attention to spe-

cific information within textual material. When the specific information

is used to answer a question, the learner is reinforced and he will attend

to subsequent questions and information relevant to them. "Backward

review" questions placed after textual passages are assumed to act as cues

which stimulate the learner to mentally review previously read material

and selectively perceive the information he considers to be relevant to

cues found within the question. This mental "backward review" acts as

additional practice which may increase the acquisition of information.

SA series of studies on behavioral objectives which have evolved

from the investigations on adjunct questions have been conducted by









Rothkopf and Kaplan (1972, 1974) and Kaplan (1974). In an initial Roth-

kopf and Kaplan study (1972), intentional (relevant) and incidental

learning were studies in relation to (a) the density of sentences in

textual material relevant to behavioral objectives, and (b) the speci-

ficity of the behavioral objectives. Density was defined as the pro-

portion of sentences in the text which were relevant to the behavioral

objectives. Behavioral objectives were defined as "specific" if only

one sentences in the text related to one behavioral objective. Objectives

were defined as "broad" if 2-5 sentences in the text related to one ob-

jective.

The major findings of these studies were: (a) students who received

specific objectives achieved significantly more intentional learning

than students who received broad objectives, but incidental learning was

not affected by the type of objective presented; and (b) incidental

learning was not affected by the density of relevant sentences in the

text, however increases in density resulted in a significant decrease in

the likelihood that any intentional item was learned. This latter find-

ing could possibly indicate that an increased memory load on a student

resulted in a decreased learning efficiency.

Two additional findings of the study were: (a) intentional learning

was significantly greater (p .001) than incidental learning for those

groups that received objectives; and (b) the treatment groups scored

significantly higher on the posttest composed of intentional and inci-

dental, items than the control groups which received no objectives but

were given directions to learn everything in the textual material.

,Rothkopf and Kaplan (1974) replicated the 1972 experiment and ex-

tended the investigations to determine if the nature of the objectives










affected the amount of time used for studying (inspection time) the

textual material. In addition, the effects of the absolute number of

objective-relevant sentences in the text and the effects of density were

explored. Significantly more inspection time was spent with specific

objectives than with broad objectives. It was also found that the like-

lihood of mastery of any objective decreased with an increase in the

absolute number of objective relevant sentences, but was relatively

independent of passage length.

Findings of this study which duplicated the findings of the 1972

study included: (a) specifically stated objectives resulted in greater

intentional learning than broad objectives, and (b) the experimental

groups scored significantly higher than control groups (no-objectives)

on a posttest composed of intentional and incidental items. This latter

finding is particularly interesting because a frequent criticism of be-

havioral objectives is that they give the learner tunnel vision and

limit learning only to objective relevant material.

In the two Rothkopf and Kaplan studies described the learners were

presented with a list of objectives which was available while they read

the textual material. This is a potentially serious flaw in the studies

because a learner could refer back to the objectives at any given time

after they were initially read. One can assume that the number of times

a learner referred back to the objectives was an uncontrolled variable.

A study conducted by Kaplan (1974) increased the control over this

variable although it was not the author's rationale for his investigation.

According to Kaplan (1974):










. the likelihood of learning objective-relevant material
was greater with (a) shorter passages, (b) fewer objectives,
and (c) more specifically phrased objectives. However, instru-
tional materials are seldom only a few pages in length and
contain a small proportion of objective-relevant material.
Further, the desirability of short passages and few objectives
conflicts with the desirability of specifically phrased ob-
jectives. That is, a greater number of specific objectives
is required to cover the same instructional points than the
more generally phrased objectives. Therefore, the type of
instructional material that students are usually required
to learn is at variance with the best use of objectives sug-
gested in the Kaplan and Rothkopf (1974) study (p. 787).


Therefore, Kaplan explored the effects of placing partial lists of

objectives either among corresponding text segments or presenting all ob-

jectives prior to the text. This procedure is similar to the studies in

which questions were inserted in textual material Other independent

variables in the study were: (a) passage length, (b) specificity of

objectives, (c) proportion of objective-relevant text sentences to total

number of text sentences (density), and (d) inspection time.

A primary finding of the study was the "part" presentation of ob-

jectives resulted in significantly greater intentional learning that was

produced with the "whole" presentation, with no significant loss of

learning. However, it appears that as in the Rothkopf and Kaplan (1972,

1974) studies, students could refer back to the objectives at any given

time in either treatment condition. Therefore, the number of times a

learner referred back to the objectives was possibly an uncontrolled

variable. Neither specificity nor density of objectives was found to

differentially influence achievement, but passage lengths of 56 sentences

(shorter segments) resulted in significantly greater achievement than

longer lengths of 113 and 169 sentences. This latter finding was true

for both "part" and "whole" presentations, longer passages, specific

objectives and larger densities.









The finding that both intentional and incidental learning for "part"

and "whole" presentations decreased as a function of passage length is

possibly consistent with the finding that the "part" presentation was

more effective than the "whole" presentation. This is because conditions

of "part" presentation and shorter passages required less memory load

on students and they therefore achieved more learning than students in

treatment conditions which did not provide memory support.

Several findings of the Kaplan study are consistent with previous

studies. Intentional learning with "whole" presentations was greater

than the reference groups' (no-objectives group) performance for every

passage length. This finding is consistent with the Rothkopf and Kaplan

(1974) study. The greater intentional learning found with "part" pre-

sentations over the reference groups' (no-objectives) performance at

every passage length is consistent with the finding of the Frase (1967)

study in which adjunct questions were placed in written material. Both

intentional and incidental learning for "part" and "whole" presentations

decreased as a function of passage length. This finding is consistent

with the Rothkopf and Kaplan (1974) study. This provides further support

for this author's hypothesis that an increased memory load on students

resulted in a decreased learning efficiency in the Rothkopf and Kaplan

(1972, 1974) and Kaplan (1974) studies.

In summary, the review of studies on behavioral objectives and ques-

tions as mathemagenic devices permits the following generalizations:


(a) Studies in which behavioral objectives and adjunct questions

were a component of instructional programs have provided incon-

sistent results regarding their effects on incidental learning.










(b) Adjunct questions and behavioral objectives can effectively

act as "forward shaping" devices.

(c) Unlike studies on adjunct questions, behavioral objectives

have not been investigated as "backward review" devices. Re-

search has provided evidence that adjunct questions placed

after textual material to act as "backward review" devices

facilitate both relevant and incidental learning. It is there-

fore logical to hypothesize that behavioral objectives placed

in textual material in such a way to elicit a backward review

response from the learner would also facilitate both incidental

and relevant learning. The effects of behavioral objectives as

"backward review" devices therefore needs to be investigated.

(d) There are indications that objectives are more effective if

they are presented as partial lists placed within text segments

as compared with presenting all of the objectives prior to

text material.



Summary and Discussion


The review of literature has revealed that behavioral objectives

can be an aid to learning in certain instructional settings. A majority

of the studies which compared the achievement of students who received

either specifically written objectives, general objectives, or no objec-

tives found no significant differences between treatment groups. However

when significance was found it was always in favor of the specifically

written objectives treatment group.. Studies also indicate that objec-

tives are effective "forward shaping" mathemagenic devices. Unlike










studies on adjunct questions, behavioral objectives have not been inves-

tigated as "backward review" devices. Findings were inconsistent for

studies in which the effects of behavioral objectives on various cogni-

tive learning levels were assessed. In addition, an insufficient number

of such studies have been conducted from which to make generalizations

about the interaction between objectives and learning levels. Investi-

gations in which the effects of interactions between learner aptitudes

and behavioral objectives were assessed were neither conclusive or

generalizable.

Many of the investigations in this review were plagued by improper

experimental designs and insufficient thought regarding the role which

behavioral objectives play as aids to learning. These factors resulted

in weaknesses common to many studies in which behavioral objectives

were not shown to facilitate learning. In the opinion of this author,

the weaknesses of the reviewed studies are as follows:


(1) A common weakness was the failure of investigators to determine

pretest effects. In several experiments it appeared that

pretest questions could have acted as information cues and,

therefore, nullified the cueing effects of behavioral

objectives.

(2) Another potential fault which occurred in the reviewed studies

was the utilization of highly structured instructional materials.

Behavioral objectives can act as organizers of information.

Therefore, in highly structured material such as programmed

materials, the addition of behavioral objectives probably

would not impose enough additional structure to produce greater

learning. Since cues are an integral component of highly










structured learning materials, any cueing effects of objectives

would be nullified.

(3) In several studies in which no main effects were found, the

authors pointed out that students were not knowledgeable as

to how objectives were to be utilized. The Dalis (1970) and

Tiemann (1968) studies are clear indicators that objectives

can be effective aids to learning if students know how to use

them.

(4) Studies in which behavioral objectives were investigated as

"forward shaping" devices have lacked proper controls, and

are few in number.

(5) Aptitude measures chosen for investigation have not been

selected on the basis of sufficiently thought out rationales.

When choosing an aptitude measure to interact with a

treatment, it is important that a task analysis is per-

formed on the experimental cognitive task before aptitude

measures are selected.


As previously stated it is apparent that behavioral objectives can

facilitate learning in some instructional settings. Weaknesses of the

conducted research on objectives have hopefully been identified and can

be corrected. Needs in future research on behavioral objectives include:


(1) Behavioral objectives need to be investigated as "forward

shaping" and "backward review" mathemagenic devices.

(2) In future investigations students need to receive training

regarding the use of objectives before a study is conducted.










(3) Textual materials used in behavioral objectives studies

should not be highly structured but should resemble chapter

material in a standard text book.

(4) Experimental designs should be utilized that properly control

those variables which would otherwise interfere with a behav-

ioral objectives treatment.

(5) Aptitude measures which are expected to interact with a

behavioral objectives treatment should be selected on the

basis of an information processing analysis performed on the

mental task which the student will be required to perform

during his participation in the experiment conducted.


The facilitative effects of behavioral objectives on student learn-

ing is still an empirical question which needs to be answered. There-

fore, additional research should be conducted and should assess the

effects of behavioral objectives on student achievement while control-

ling major contaminating factors present in earlier studies.



Statement of Hypotheses


Based upon the previously reviewed research and theory, the follow-

ing research hypotheses were tested.


1. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed before

passages within textual material will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of relevant information than subjects

receiving written behavioral objectives placed after written

passages within the textual materials.










2. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed after

passages within textual materials will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of incidental information than subjects

receiving written behavioral objectives placed before passages

within textual material.

3. Subjects receiving behavioral objectives placed before passages

within textual material will exhibit significantly greater

acquisition of relevant information than incidental information.

4. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed before

passages within textual materials will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of relevant information than subjects

receiving all the written behavioral objectives before the

complete textual materials.

5. Subjects receiving the complete list of written behavioral ob-

jectives placed after the textual materials will exhibit signi-

ficantly greater acquisition of incidental information than

subjects receiving the complete list of behavioral objectives

placed before the textual materials.

6. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed before

passages within textual material will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of relevant information than subjects re-

ceiving the textual materials without behavioral objectives

(control group).

7. There will be a differential relationship between criterion

performances and aptitudes of subjects, relative to the treat-

ment received.















CHAPTER II

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The Design


A modified posttest only, control group design as described in

Table 1, was used with four experimental groups and one control group

(Campbell and Stanley, 1963). The posttest only, control group design

does permit one to evaluate the effects that an independent variable has

on a dependent variable (Kerlinger, 1964). This design did not assess

entering knowledge. However, it was felt that since pretest questions

could potentially act as cues and therefore nullify the cueing effects

of behavioral objectives and because total randomization was possible,

this would be an appropriate design.

A pilot posttest was administered to a randomly selected group of

students from the experimental population two weeks prior to conducting

the experiment. Scores on that posttest indicated that students did not

possess enough prerequisite knowledge about the subject matter to be

used in the experiment to influence the treatment effects.

The aforementioned design has no threats to internal validity but

does contain two possible sources of external invalidity (Campbell and

Stanley, 1963). These possible threats to external invalidity include:

(1) interaction of selection- and treatment, and (2) reactive arrangements.










TABLE 1

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN


Group Treatment Posttest


Group I R X (behavioral objectives placed before 01
passages within textual material)

Group II R X (behavioral objectives placed after 02
passages within textual material)

Group III R X (all behavioral objectives placed 03
before textual material)

Group IV R X (all behavioral objectives placed 04
after textual material)

Group V R X (textual material only-no behavioral 05
objectives)









Aptitude Measurements

Subjects were given two aptitude measures prior to their participa-

tion in the experimental procedures. The aptitude measures administered

were taken from the Kit of Reference Tests for Cognitive Factors (French,

Elkstrom, and Price, 1963). The tests selected were Vocabulary Test V-2

and First and Last Names Test Ma-3. These tests were designed to measure

a person's ability to understand word meanings and a person's short-term

associative memory ability. Aptitude tests appear in Appendix A.

The selection of the vocabulary and memory tests was guided by two

information processing models; Melton's (1967) multiprocess model of

learning and Gagne's (1974) model of information processing. Both models

permit one to identify the information processing steps in which the

learner engages when confronted with instructional stimuli, The

researcher can then analyze a particular instructional treatment in

terms of an experimental subject's thought processes and decide what

aptitudes would enable the learner to take advantage of the treatment

to optimize achievement.

The Vocabulary Test V-2 was selected in anticipation that students'

vocabulary achievement (an aptitude) would interact with the behavioral

objectives treatments. Based on a previous study (Baker, 1976) it was

believed that the greater a person's vocabulary achievement the better

that person would be able to take advantage of the written behavioral

objectives treatments. The vocabulary test was composed of 36 multiple-

choice items. Students were given eight minutes to complete the timed

test. Students' scores were determined by the correct number of answers.

The short term associative memory test measured students' ability

to remember first names and their associated last names after seeing









both names together. Students studied a page showing 15 full names for

a given time period. Then students turned to a page which showed only

the rearranged last names and were asked to fill in the correct first

names from memory. Students followed these procedures for two sets of

15 names. The test was timed and all students started and finished

within the same time frame. Students' scores were determined by the

correct number of answers.

The associative memory test was selected to determine if students

with a high memory score could capitalize on the behavioral objectives

treatment more efficiently than students with a low memory score. It

was anticipated that students who received behavioral objectives and

scored relatively high on the associative memory test would capitalize

on their memory aptitude by associating specific textual content to the

behavioral objectives. Thus their attention would focus on the informa-

tion relevant to the posttest and their achievement would therefore be

enhanced.


Treatment Procedures

Subjects

Tenth and eleventh grade students enrolled in a social science

course at P.K. Yonge Laboratory School were identified as suitable

subjects on the basis of a previous pilot study, availability, and the

congruency between the nature of the treatment materials and the nature

of the social science course in which subjects were enrolled. The dis-

tribution of experimental subjects by sex and grade level appears in

Table 2. A total of 110 subjects read the material on sex education,

completed the posttest, and completed at least one aptitude measure.










TABLE 2


DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY SEX AND GRADE LEVEL


Group Number Sex Grade Level
Male Female 10 11



Group I (behavioral objectives placed before
passages within textual material) 21 11 10 10 11

Group II (behavioral objectives placed after
passages within textual material) 21 10 11 12 9

Group III (all behavioral objectives placed
before textual material) 22 12 10 11 11

Group IV (all behavioral objectives placed
after textual material) 23 9 14 12 11

Group V (textual material only-no behavioral
objectives) 23 11 12 11 12










Twenty-nine students from the experimental population were administered

a pilot posttest prior to the experiment. As previously mentioned these

randomly selected students were given a posttest to estimate the amount

of prerequisite knowledge possessed by the experimental population.

These students did participate in the experiment but their test scores

were not included as part of any comparison group.



General Procedures


Subjects participated in the experiment during a two-hour period in

which they were normally engaged in the activities of a social studies

class. A total of three tenth grade classes and three eleventh grade

classes were involved in the experiment. It was determined that no

particular class was composed of students unique in ability or interests.

Subjects within each class were randomly assigned to one of four treat-

ment groups or a control group.

Each two hour experimental session began with an introduction to

the experiment and an explanation regarding how behavioral objectives

should be utilized in a learning situation. The verbal explanation

about behavioral objectives was presented to each class by the experi-

menter with the aid of overhead transparencies (Appendix B). The ex-

planation was the same for each class and was approximately 15 minutes

in length. During that time, the term behavioral objective was defined

and examples of behavioral objectives were shown with questions which

measured them. In addition, students were shown examples of objectives

which were either preceded or followed by written material and asked

to identify that part of the written material which was relevant to the









objectives. The purpose of the orientation to behavioral objectives was

to provide the subjects with knowledge of a strategy for using objectives

in the context of the experimental textual materials.

Subjects then received the written treatment materials and were

given verbal instructions to read the directions at the beginning of the

treatment materails, read through the treatment materials and then com-

plete the test based on the textual material. Subjects were given approx-

imately one and a half hours to read the treatment materials and complete

the test. A record of the time required for completion of the materials

was not made, but all subjects who completed the materials and test

finished within the allowed time period. A few students failed to

complete the experimental task. These subjects were not considered part

of the sample for the data analyses.



Treatment Materials


Textual Material


A 12 page instructional unit on birth control and sexual anatomy

was developed from information in a booklet entitled, The Crucial Gen-

eration (Van Vleck, 1971). Materials in the unit were selected because

they were readable, attractive, and perceived as being interesting to

students. The textual material was designed to be similar in format

to a chapter in a standard biology or social sciences test. Behavioral

objectives and test items were then added to the instructional unit.










Behavioral Objectives


Eighteen specifically written behavioral objectives were generated

and placed within the instructional unit. The behavioral objectives were

classified as "knowledge" level objectives (Bloom, 1956). The differ-

ential placement of the objectives into the unit constituted the four

different experimental treatments. The objectives were identical for all

four treatment groups. The textual material without behavioral objectives

constituted the control condition. The placement of objectives within

each treatment package is described below.



Treatment I Specific Behavioral Objectives Placed Within/Before
Textual Material


In Treatment I, behavioral objectives were interspersed within the

textual material (Appendix D). Each objective was placed immediately

before the written passage to which the objective was relevant. It was

hypothesized that the learner would read the objective and then focus

his/her attention on the content in the passages that followed which was

relevant to the objective. In this treatment the objectives were thought

to produce a "forward shaping" effect. In other words, the objectives

acted as cues to enable the learner to selectively perceive relevant

information. The following written directions were given to subjects

in Treatment I.


Read through the written material on the following pages.
Within the material you will find learning objectives
(behavioral objectives). Upon completion of this unit you
should be able to demonstrate your mastery of the objectives
on a written test. In other words there will be'test
questions which match the objectives. Read the objectives
carefully.









Treatment II Specific Behavioral Objectives Placed After Textual
Material

In Treatment II, behavioral objectives were interspersed within the

textual material after the written passages to which the objectives were

relevant (Appendix E). In all cases objectives were placed on the page

following the relevant written passages. This arrangement provided a

.situation in which the learner would read written material, turn the page,

and read an objective relevant to the material just read. It was hypoth-

esized that the learner would read the behavioral objective and then

mentally review the material previously read and hopefully recall rele-

vant information. In this treatment the objectives were designed to act

as "backward review" devices. If the objectives served the designed

purpose in this treatment then the learner would also mentally review

both relevant and incidental material. The following written directions

were given to subjects in Treatment II.


Read through the written material on the following pages.
Within the material you will find learning objectives
(behavioral objectives). Upon completion of this unit you
should be able to demonstrate your mastery of the objectives
on a written test. In other words there will be test
questions which match the objectives. Read the objectives
carefully.


Treatment III All specific Behavioral Objectives Placed Before
Textual Material


In Treatment III, a list of all 18 behavioral objectives were

placed before the textual material (Appendix F). Treatment III was

designed to be similar to learning modules which are commonly used in

self-instructional programs. This treatment was designed so that the










learners would initially read the complete list of objectives and then

read the textual material. It was hypothesized that as the learners read

through the textual material they would recall the objectives and focus

their attention on the material relevant to the objectives remembered.

This treatment was similar to Treatment I as in both treatments objec-

tives were designed to act as "forward shaping" devices. However, Treat-

ment III placed a greater memory load on the student than did Treatment

I. The following written directions were given to subjects in Treatment

III.


Read through the written material on the following pages.
At the beginning of the unit you will find a list of
learning objectives (behavioral objectives). Read the
objectives carefully. After reading the objectives read
through the unit. Then turn to the test and demonstrate
your mastery of the objectives. In other words there
will be test questions which match the objectives.



Treatment IV All Specific Behavioral Objectives Placed After
Textual Material


In Treatment IV, a list of all 18 behavioral objectives were placed

after the textual material (Appendix G). This treatment was designed

so :that learners would initially read through the textual material.

Then after having finished the reading material the learners would

read the list of 18 behavioral objectives and mentally review the mate-

rial previously read which was relevant to the objectives. This treat-

ment was similar to Treatment II because in both treatments objectives

were designed to act as "backward review" devices. However, Treatment IV

placed a greater memory load on the student than did Treatment II. The

following written directions were given to students in Treatment IV.










Read through the written material on the following pages.
At the end of the unit you will find a list of learning
objectives (behavioral objectives). Read the objectives
carefully. You should then turn to the test and demonstrate
your mastery of the objectives. In other words there will
-be test questions which match the objectives.



Treatment V Control Group


No objectives were presented to subjects in the control group.

However, they did receive the same textual material which was given to

subjects in Treatment I through IV. The following written directions

were given to subjects in the control group.. See Appendix C.


Read through the written material which follows and learn
everything you can. You will be given a test at the end
of the unit on the material you have read.



The Posttest


A 36 item multiple choice test was written and placed at the end of

the 12 page instructional unit (Appendix H ). Each question was composed

of a stem, one correct answer and three distractors. As previously

mentioned, the 36 item test was administered to a randomly selected

group of students from the experimental population for the purpose of

examining subjects' prerequisite knowledge. An item analysis was con-

ducted.on that test and three items were modified to meet an acceptable

level of difficulty. The resulting 36 item multiple choice test then

comprised the written criterion measure.

The criterion measure was designed to measure relevant and inci-

dental information. Questions 1 through 18 were referenced to the be-

havioral objectives in the written instructional treatment. These









questions therefore were thought to measure the retention of "relevant"

information. Each test item (question) measured the mastery of a differ-

ent behavioral objective, therefore the mastery of each behavioral ob-

jective was measured. Questions 19 through 36 were not referenced to

the behavioral objectives and therefore measured retention of incidental

information.

A point bi-serial correlation technique was used to evaluate the

reliability of each test item. This technique is a suitable method of

estimating a question's potential to discriminate between subjects who

score in the top half and those who score in the bottom half of the group

being tested. More specifically the reliability of each test item rep-

resents the degree of correlation between an item score and the total

test score. Bi-serial correlations for questions 1 through 36 are

reported in Appendix I.

The difficulties for the 36 questions were calculated and are also

reported in Appendix I. Difficulty was defined as the proportion of

the subjects that answered an item correctly, therefore the greater the

value for difficulty the easier the item. The mean difficulty of the

posttest was .671 while the range of difficulties varied from .404 to

.835.

A Hoyt's Reliability Coefficient of ..8770 was computed for the

total posttest (items I 36). This coefficient was based on the test

scores of the 110 experimental subjects.















CHAPTER III

RESULTS


The primary objectives of this study were:

1. to examine the differences in learning achievement attributable

to instructional treatments in which the location of behavioral

objectives was varied in relation to textual materials, and

2. to explore the effects of individual differences on learning

from different modes of instructional content..

This chapter will describe the statistical tests of the hypotheses

and the results achieved The presentation of results will first treat

the analysis of aptitude x treatment interactions which will be followed

by an analysis of the instructional treatment main effects. The analy-

ses were computed using the University of Florida Statistical Programs

Library and the SPSS Language Package.



Independent and Dependent Variables


Independent variables include those variables which are being

evaluated in an experiment. The criterion by which the independent

variables are being evaluated are referred to as the dependent variables.

This study included independent variables described as aptitudes and the

differential placement of behavioral objectives in textual material.

Dependent variables included posttest questions 1 through 18 (relevant

questions) and posttest questions 19 through 36 (incidental questions).

Independent and dependent variables are listed in Table 3.
40










TABLE 3

INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES


Dependent Variables


1. Vocabulary Test V-2

2. First and Last Names Test Ma-3

3. Treatment I (behavioral objectives placed before
passages within textual material)

4. Treatment II (behavioral objectives placed after
passages within textual material)

5. Treatment III (behavioral objectives placed
before textual material)

6. Treatment IV (all behavioral objectives placed
after textual material)

7. Treatment V (textual material only-no behavioral
objectives)


1. Posttest Questions 1-18
(relevant questions)

2. Posttest Questions 19-36
(incidental questions)


Independent Variables


__










Aptitude x Treatment Interactions


The following hypothesis was of major concern relative to aptitude

treatment interactions:

There will be a differential relationship between criterion per-

formance and aptitudes of subjects, relative to the treatment received.



Aptitude Measures


As previously mentioned, aptitude measures included the Vocabulary

Test V-2 and the First and Last Names Test Ma-3. These tests measured

verbal ability and short term associative memory. A Hoyt's Reliability

Coefficient of .8337 was computed for the vocabulary test. The vocabu-

lary test means and standard deviations for the experimental groups

appear in Table 4 A Hoyt's Reliability Coefficient of .8072 was

computed for the memory test. The memory test (First and Last Names

Ma-3) means and standard deviations for the experimental groups appear

in Table 4.



Evaluation for Aptitude x Treatment Interaction


Aptitude measures can be treated as continuous variables or cate-

gorical variables. In this study vocabulary scores and memory scores

within each treatment group were treated as continuous variables.

According to Kerlinger and Pedhazer (1973):


Categorization leads to a loss of information, and consequently
to a less sensitive analysis. . It is this loss of informa-
tion about the differences between subjects, or the reduction
in the variability of the continuous variable, that leads to a
reduction in the sensitivity of the analysis (pp. 241,242).











TABLE 4

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR APTITUDE MEASURES


Vocabulary Test First and Last Names Test
Treatment Condition n Means Standard Deviations Means Standard Deviations


Group I Treatment I 21 19.100 5.812 15.286 7.051

Group II Treatment II 21 18.315 5.860 19.667 7.146

Group III Treatment III 22 21.350 4.913 18.895 8.055

Group IV Treatment IV 23 20.522 5.468 17.636 0.835

Group V Control 23 20.364 6.160 15.905 7.549









Several preliminary investigatory steps are necessary before tests

are conducted to detect aptitude x treatment interaction. A first step

in investigating the possibility of an aptitude x treatment interaction

is to determine that each aptitude measure is statistically reliable.

Unreliable aptitude scores are not reproducible and therefore they are

not generalizable. As mentioned previously, both the memory and vocab-

ulary aptitude measures met an acceptable reliability criterion. A

second step is to determine that all experimental groups have similar

aptitude abilities. Table 4 provides evidence that the variance of no

one experimental group differed significantly in vocabulary or memory

abilities from any other group. A third step is to determine whether

aptitude measures provide linear data or curvilinear data. F tests for

deviation from linearity of vocabulary scores were conducted separately

for the analysis of relevant test scores (1-18), incidental test scores

(19-36), and total test scores (1-36). In each separate test it was

revealed that vocabulary scores significantly deviated from a linear

pattern and were therefore curvilinear. F values which resulted from

tests for vocabulary linearity appear in Tables 5, 6, and 7. F tests

for deviation from linearity of memory scores were also conducted sep-

arately for the analysis of relevant, incidental, and total test scores.

In each separate test it was revealed that memory scores did not deviate

from a linear pattern. The F values for memory linearity and vocabulary

linearity for relevant, incidental, and total test scores appear in

Tables 5, 6, and 7 respectively.

A regression solution for analysis of covariance was used to detect

possible aptitude x treatment interactions. The possibility of inter-

actions was evaluated by comparing regression slopes obtained from










TABLE 5

F TABLE FOR TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF APTITUDE X TREATMENT INTERACTION BETWEEN
VOCABULARY SCORES AND MEMORY SCORES WITH THE RELEVANT'TEST QUESTIONS (1-18)


Source df ss ms F



Vocabulary x Treatment 4 12.141 3.035 0.2794

Memory x Treatment 4 90.905 22.726 2.0920

Vocabulary Linearity 1 171.847 171.847 15.8194*

Memory Linearity 1 3.549 3.549 0.3267

Residual 99 1075.459 10.863

Total 109


**p .01










TABLE 6

F TABLE FOR TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF APTITUDE X TREATMENT INTERACTION BETWEEN
VOCABULARY SCORES AND MEMORY SCORES WITH THE INCIDENTAL TEST QUESTIONS (19-36)



Source df ss ms F


Vocabulary x Treatment 4 18.655 4.664 0.3380

Memory x Treatment 4 39.843 9.961 0.7230

Vocabulary Linearity 1 278.059 278.059 20.1780*

Memory Linearity 1 .009 .009 0.0006

Residual 99 1364.197 13.780

Total 109


**p <.01










TABLE 7

F TABLE FOR TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF APTITUDE X TREATMENT INTERACTIONS BETWEEN
VOCABULARY SCORES AND MEMORY SCORES WITH THE TOTAL TEST QUESTIONS (1-36)


Source df ss ms F



Vocabulary x Treatment 4 59.237 14.809 0.3560

Memory x Treatment 4 239.098 59.775 1.4360

Vocabulary Linearity 1 951.779 951.779 22.8640*

Memory Linearity 1 5.971 5.971 0.1434

Residual 99 4127.204 41.272

Total 109



**p <.01










aptitude-criterion pairs for each treatment condition using F tests for

heterogeneity of regression. An aptitude x treatment interaction would

be indicated by finding that compared regression lines were significantly

non-parallel.

The following six combinations of independent and dependent vari-

ables were utilized to investigate aptitude x treatment interactions.

1. Vocabulary x treatment for relevant test scores (1-18)

2. Vocabulary x treatment for incidental test scores (19-36)

3. Vocabulary x treatments for total test scores (1-36)

4. Memory x treatment for relevant test scores (1-18)

5. Memory x treatment for incidental test scores (19-36)

6. Memory x treatment for total test scores (1-36)

In none of the above cases was a significant F value for hetero-

geneity of regression detected. The F values for vocabulary x treatment

and memory x treatment interactions appear in Tables 5, 6, and 7 for the

relevant questions, incidental questions, and total test questions re-

spectively.

As previously mentioned, vocabulary scores deviated significantly,

from a linear pattern and were thus curvilinear. It was therefore nec-

essary to re-analyze the vocabulary x treatment interactions while treat-

ing vocabulary scores as curvilinear data points. The possibility of

vocabulary x treatment interactions was evaluated by comparing regression

slopes obtained from vocabulary-criterion pairs for each treatment con-

dition using F tests for heterogeneity of regression. The following

three combinations of vocabulary scores and dependent variables were

analyzed.










1. Vocabulary x treatment for relevant test scores (1-18)

2. Vocabulary x treatment for incidental test scores (19-36)

3. Vocabulary x treatment for total test scores (1-36)

In none of the above cases was a significant F value for hetero-

geneity of regression detected. The F values for vocabulary x treatment

interactions appear in Table 8.

The above findings indicated that aptitude x treatment interactions

were not present. Therefore, hypothesis number seven was not supported.



Instructional Treatment Main Effects


The following research hypotheses were of major concern relative to

instructional treatment main effects.

1. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed before

passages within textual material will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of relevant information than subjects

receiving written behavioral objectives placed after written

passages within the textual materials.

2. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed after

passages within textual materials will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of incidental information than subjects

receiving written behavioral objectives placed before passages

within textual material.

3. Subjects receiving behavioral objectives placed before passages

within textual material will exhibit significantly greater

acquisition of relevant information than incidental information.










TABLE 8

F TABLE FOR TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF APTITUDE X TREATMENT INTERACTION BETWEEN
CURVILINEAR VOCABULARY SCORES WITH RELEVANT TEST QUESTIONS (1-18),
INCIDENTAL TEST QUESTIONS (19-36), AND TOTAL TEST QUESTIONS (1-36)


Source df ss ms F


Vocabulary x Treatment 4 7.225 1.806 0.141
(Relevant Questions)

Residual 105 1346.675 12.826

Total 109

Vocabulary x Treatment 4 11.441 2.860 0.178
(Incidental Questidns)

Residual 105 1689.323 16.089

Total 109


Vocabulary x Treatment 4 31.815 7.954 0.156
(Total Questions)

Residual 105 5345.503 50.910

Total 109









4. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed before

passages within textual materials will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of relevant information than subjects

receiving all the written behavioral objectives before the

complete textual materials.

5. Subjects receiving the complete list of written behavioral ob-

jectives placed after the textual materials will exhibit signi-

ficantly greater acquisition of incidental information than

subjects receiving the complete list of behavioral objectives

placed before the textual materials.

6. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed before

passages within textual material will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of relevant information than subjects re-

ceiving the textual materials without behavioral objectives

(control group).

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of five experimental groups

After reading textual material subjects completed a 36-item multiple

choice test. The test was composed of questions (1-18) which measured

knowledge relevant to the 18 behavioral objectives and questions (19-

36) which measured knowledge not relevant (incidental) to the behavioral

objectives. It was the posttest scores on which the analyses for in-

structional main effects was performed.



Testing of Hypotheses for Main Effects


Research hypotheses numbered one, four, and six were examined

using sex education achievement scores on relevant posttest questions









(1-18). These posttest scores were compared for each treatment group

by using a regression equation for the analysis of covariance. Multiple

regression was used because there were unequal numbers of subjects in the

experimental groups. According to Kerlinger and Pedhazer (1973): "al-

though the problem of unequal n's, when analyzing experimental data with

multiple regression does not disappear, it is so much a problem as to be

almost negligible" (p. 7). The selection of the analysis of covariance

technique for testing differences between groups in a research design

such as that used in this study is supported by Kerlinger (1967).

The analysis of covariance technique permitted the comparison of

the variances of the five experimental groups after differences in

variance due to vocabulary and memory abilities had been taken into

account. The resulting test for instructional treatment main effects

(Table 9 ) on sex education ahcievement questions 1 through 18 re-

vealed that no experimental group mean score was significantly higher

than any other group mean score (F= .908, df 4/109, p < .05). Hypoth-

eses number one, four, and six were therefore not supported.

.Research hypothesis number two was examined using sex education

achievement scores on posttest questions 19 through 36 (incidental in-

formation). A Student's t test was conducted to assess the significance

of the difference between the means of treatment groups one and two on

the incidental questions. The means for groups one and two were_11.381

and 11.905 respectively (TablelO). No significant difference between

the means of the two groups was found (F= .398, df= 40, p< .05). There-

fore, hypothesis number two was not supported.










TABLE 9

SUIRARY TABLE FOR ONE WAY ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE


Source df ss ms F


Vocabulary and Memory 2 223.12 111.56 10.525

Treatment 4 38.48 9.62 .908

Residual 103 1092.29 10.60

Total 109










TABLE 10

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR RELEVANT, INCIDENTAL, AND TOTAL POSTTEST QUESTIONS


Means Standard Deviation
Relevant Incidental Total Relevant Incidental Total
Questions Questions Questions Questions Questions Questions
Treatment Condition n (1-18) (19-36) (1-36) (1-18) (19-36) (1-36)


Group I Treatment I 21 11.667 11.381 23.048 4.187 3.930 7.736

Group II Treatment II 21 12.429 11.905 24.334 3.310 4.592 7.437

Group III Treatment III 22 12.091 12.091 24.182 3.176 3.866 6.544

Group IV Treatment IV 23 11.478 11.870 23.348 4.122 4.465 8.205

Group V Control 23 12.826 13.304 26.130 2.790 2.819 5.066









Research hypothesis number three was examined using sex education

achievement scores on posttest questions 1 through 18 (relevant informa-

tion) and questions 19 through 36 (incidental information) for Treatment

Group I. A Student's t test was conducted to assess the significance

of the difference between the means of .questions 1 through 18 and ques-

tions 19 through 36. The means for relevant and incidental posttest

questions were 11.667 and 11.381 respectively (Table 10 ). No signifi-

cant difference between the means on both halves of the test was found

(F= .228, df= 40, p < .05). Hypothesis number three was therefore

not supported.

Research hypothesis number five was examined using sex education

achievement scores on posttest questions 19 through 36 (incidental in-

formation). A Student's t test was conducted to assess the significance

of the difference between the means of treatment groups three and four

on the incidental questions. The means for groups three and four were

12.091 and 11.870 respectively (TablelO ). No significant difference

between the means of the two groups was found (F= .162, df= 41, p < .05).

Therefore, hypothesis number five was not supported.
















CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary of Data: Hypotheses Tests


This study sought to examine the differences in learning achieve-

ment attributable to instructional treatments in which the location of

behavioral objectives was varied in relation to textual materials. An

additional purpose of the study was to examine the interactions between

certain learner aptitudes and the behavioral objectives treatment. Some

general premises basic to this study include the following:


1. The intended instructional stimulus (physical stimulus)

presented to the learner during instruction is not in simple

correspondence to the stimulus actually selectively per-

ceived and encoded by the learner, and it is the encoded

stimulus which is the basis for psychological learning

activity.

2. The various internal information processing activities

which contribute to the encoding of an effective stimulus

can be influenced by elements in the physical stimulus.

Therefore, acquisition of information from an instructional

situation varies as a function of the prompts and cues

included in the instructional material and environment

(Wilson, 1973).









3. The effectiveness of different instructional material varies

from individual to individual with differences being correlated

with aptitudes (Wilson, 1973).


Instructional Treatment Main Effects


In this section, research hypotheses numbered one through six will

be individually restated, the finding stated, and the rationale for

initially proposing each research hypothesis will be presented. Sub-

sequently, findings are to be discussed.


Research Hypothesis Number One.

1. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed before

passages within textual material will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of relevant information than subjects re-

ceiving written behavioral objectives placed after written

passages within the textual materials.

As previously defined, textual information was identified as rele-

vant if the information was directly referenced to a written behavioral

objective. Therefore, when a subject responded correctly to posttest

questions referenced to behavioral objectives (questions 1 through 18)

his performance was evidence .for acquisition of relevant information.

Support for this hypothesis was dependent upon finding a significant

difference (p .05) between the means of experimental groups one and

two on the relevant posttest questions. The statistical test of this

hypothesis did not reveal a significant difference between these means.

Therefore, hypothesis number one was not supported.










It was anticipated that subjects who received behavioral objectives

placed immediately before a passage (Treatment I) would focus his/her

attention on that part of the passage relevant to the behavioral objec-

tive. The objective would then have acted as a forward shaping device.

Then upon encountering a test question referenced to the objective the

learner would recall the information;upon which he had previously focused

(relevant information) and respond to the question correctly.

In Treatment I the behavioral objectives were designed to be stim-

uli which would aid the learner in selectively perceiving and attending

to particular bits (relevant, information) of the total stimulus. The

learner could then encode the relevant information and place it in

memory storage to be recalled later. One possible effect on the learner

in this treatment is that in the process of focusing on particular

bits of information, incidental information was not perceived.

It was anticipated that subjects who received a behavioral objec-

tive placed after a passage (Treatment II) would not focus their atten-

tion on any particular part of the written passage. Upon encountering

the behavioral objective placed after the written passage it was believed

the learner would mentally review what he had read and attempt to focus

on the information relevant to the objective. It will be recalled that

subjects encountered behavioral objectives on a page following the writ-

ten passage and were not permitted to turn back the page and visually

search for information. In the process of the backward mental review

it was anticipated that students would mentally review information not

relevant (incidental information) to the behavioral objective as well

as information that was relevant to the objective. However, it was be-

lieved that the backward review process would not be as effective for









remembering relevant information as would the forward shaping process

engaged in by students in Treatment I.


Research Hypothesis Number Two.

2. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed after

passages within textual materials will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of incidental information than subjects

receiving written behavioral objectives placed before passages

within textual material.

As previously defined,textual information was identified as inci-

dental if the information was not directly referenced to a written behav-

ioral objective. Therefore, when a subject responded correctly to post-

test questions not referenced to behavioral objectives (questions 19

through 36) his performance was evidence for acquisition of incidental

information.

Support for hypothesis number two was dependent upon finding a sig-

nificant difference (p <.05) between the means of experimental groups

one and two on the incidental posttest questions. The statistical test

of this hypothesis did not reveal a significant difference between these

means. Therefore, hypothesis number two was not supported.

As previously mentioned it was anticipated that subjects who re-

ceived behavioral objectives placed after a passage (Treatment II) would

engage in a backward review process and mentally reflect on both inci-

dental and relevant "information. It was also believed that subjects who

received objectives before the written passages would focus their atten-

tion on relevant information at the expense of disregarding incidental

information.









Research Hypothesis Number Three.

3. Subjects receiving behavioral objectives placed before passages

within textual material will exhibit significantly greater

acquisition of relevant information than incidental information.

Support for hypothesis number three was dependent upon finding a

significant difference (p<.05) between the group means on relevant

questions (1 through 18) and incidental questions (19 through 36). The

statistical test of this hypothesis did not reveal a significant differ-

ence between these measures. Therefore, hypothesis number three was not

supported.

For:reasons explained in the discussion of hypotheses one and two

it was anticipated that subjects in Treatment I would read the behavioral

objective and then focus on or selectively perceive information relevant

to the objective in the passage that followed. It was anticipated that

in the process of focusing on relevant information, incidental material

would receive less attention. Therefore subjects who received behavioral

objectives placed before passages within the text material would recall

more relevant information than incidental information in a test situation.


Research Hypothesis Number Four.

4. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed before

passages within textual materials will exhibit significantly

greater acquisition of relevant information than subjects

receiving all the written behavioral objectives placed before

the complete textual materials.

Support for hypothesis number four was dependent upon finding a

significant difference (p < .05) between the means of treatment groups









one and three on relevant posttest question (1 18). The statistical

test of this hypothesis did not reveal a significant difference between

means. Therefore, hypothesis number four was not supported.

It will be recalled that subjects in Treatment Group III received

the complete list of eighteen written objectives placed at the beginning

of the textual material. It was anticipated that Treatment III subjects

would read the entire list of objectives and subsequently focus on mater-

ial relevant to the objectives as they read through the textual material.

The expected response of Treatment Group I subjects to the behav-

ioral objectives placed before passages within textual material has been

explained in the discussion of hypothesis number one. It was anticipated

that subjects in Treatment Group I would recall more relevant information

than subjects in Treatment Group III because of the differential memory

load required by these treatments. Subjects in Treatment III were ex-

pected to focus on a relatively less amount of relevant information than

subjects in Treatment Group I because it was thought they would forget

a number of objectives after they were initially read. Subjects in

Treatment III were not permitted to turn back pages and review the ob-

jectives after they had initially read the list. Correspondingly, sub-

jects in Treatment Group I could potentially forget fewer objectives be-

cause they were interspersed throughout the textual material.


Research Hypothesis Number Five.

5. Subjects receiving the complete list of written behavioral

objectives placed after the textual materials will exhibit

significantly greater acquisition of incidental information

than subjects receiving the complete list of behavioral

objectives placed before the textual materials.










Support for hypothesis number five was dependent upon finding a

significant difference (p .05) between the means of experimental groups

three and four on incidental questions (19-36). The statistical test

of this hypothesis did not reveal a significant difference between these

means. Therefore, hypothesis number five was not supported.

It was anticipated that subjects in Treatment Group III would focus

their attention on material relevant to the objectives they could remem-

ber as they read through the textual material. In the process of focus-

ing on the relevant material it was expected that incidental information

would receive less attention. Correspondingly it was anticipated that

subjects who received the complete list of objectives at the end of the

textual material (Treatment Group IV) would not focus their attention

more on one aspect of the textual material than another. Therefore

incidental information would not be disregarded.



Research Hypothesis Number Six.

6. Subjects receiving written behavioral objectives placed

before passages within textual material will exhibit

significantly greater acquisition of relevant information

than subjects receiving textual material without the

written behavioral objectives (control group).

Support for hypothesis number six was dependent upon finding a sig-

nificant difference (p < .05) between the means of treatment groups one

(objectives within/before text material) and the control group (textual

material without objectives) on relevant posttest questions (1-18). The

statistical test of this hypothesis did not reveal a significant differ-

ence between these means. Therefore, hypothesis number six was not

supported.










As previously discussed it: was anticipated that subjects in Treat-

ment Group I would be able to capitalize on the behavioral objectives

treatment by focusing on relevant textual information and then exhibit

the learning of that information by correctly answering relevant posttest

questions. It was believed that Treatment I provided optimal conditions

for students' advantageous utilization of objectives.

It was expected that subjects who did not receive behavioral objec-

tives would not focus on any particular part of the textual material and

therefore be relatively disadvantaged, compared to Treatment Group I

subjects, when attempting to answer relevant posttest questions. There-

fore, Treatment Group I subjects were expected to out perform the control

group subjects (Experimental Group Five) on relevant posttest questions.



Aptitude x Treatment Interactions


The hypothesis for the expected aptitude x treatment interactions

was stated as follows:

There will be a differential relationship between criterion

performances and aptitude of subjects, relative to the treat-

ment received..

Support for this hypothesis was dependent on finding a significant

F value for heterogeneity of regression when the aptitude variables

(memory and vocabulary) and the criterion scores for relevant questions,

incidental questions, and total test questions were separately compared.

F tests for heterogeneity of regression were not significant, therefore

the data indicated that aptitude x treatment interactions were not

present.









It was anticipated that the student aptitude abilities would differ-

entially interact with the variations on the behavioral objectives treat-

ment. It was believed that the greater a person's vocabulary achieve-

ment the better that person would be able to take advantage of the be-

havioral objectives treatment. It was believed that students' memory

aptitudes would differentially interact with the various behavioral

objectives treatments because the treatments required differential mem-

ory loads.

Research hypotheses numbered one through seven have been presented

and the results of the statistical tests to provide support or non-

support for each hypothesis was given. In addition, a rationale for

proposing each hypothesis was discussed. The rationales presented were

based on a review of the literature and on information processing models

conceptualized by Melton (1967) and Gagne (1974).



Discussion of Findings


Based on the literature reviewed, there was reason to expect that

the treatments administered during this experiment may have resulted in

significant effects as proposed in hypotheses one through six. Signi-

ficant effects of the behavioral objectives treatment was not found.

Why these results were obtained cannot be determined from the data

collected. However, the following possibilities warrant serious con-

sideration and study.

1. The objectives, rather than acting to focus students' attention

on relevant information may have interfered with the attending

efforts of both poor readers and good readers. It is possible










that for poor readers the objectives added to their reading

load and therefore increased the difficulty of the materials.

It is also possible that for the very good readers the objec-

tives added structure not needed by good readers. Therefore,

the reading comprehension of the good readers may have been

impaired by the presence of objectives.

2. The nature of the textual materials may have been very stimu-

lating for students who participated in the study. Therefore

it is possible that all parts of the material were given equal

attention regardless of the presence or placement of objectives

within the textual materials.

3. The materials used in this study were designed to be represen-

tative of a chapter of textual material which a student would

encounter in a social science or biological science text book.

For this reason topic headings were included in the experimental

reading materials. It is possible that topic headings acted

in competition with the behavioral objectives. This would be

the case if students attended to the topic headings and used

them to guide their attention to specific parts of the textual

materials.

4. The relevant posttest scores and incidental posttest scores

were highly correlated (Appendix J). This could indicate that

the relevant information and incidental information were closely

related and/or interdependent. If this were the case, a student

who focused on relevant information after reading an objective

may have focused on incidental information inadvertently. In

such a situation, the presence of objectives would not differ-










entially affect student performance on relevant and incidental

posttest questions.

5. The textual material without objectives was 12 pages in length.

A total of 18 objectives was added to this material. This

resulted in a relatively high density of behavioral objectives

within the textual material. It is possible that such a high

density of objectives placed a cognitive overload on the students

and actually inhibited their ability to process information.

6. Students may have been inattentive to the written objectives.

This phenomenon may have occurred for the following reasons.

a. The brief training session on the use of objectives

which was presented to students before the experiment

began may have been inadequate. Failure to test the

training program was a weakness of the design.

b. The P. K. Laboratory School presents a relatively

unstructured instructional program that purports to foster

personalized learning styles. Students may have been in-

attentive to the objectives because they had learned from

previous experience to rely on their personalized studying

strategy. If this were true the students would not have

attended to the objectives even if they understood the

training orientation on the use of objectives.

As previously mentioned, aptitude x treatment interactions were not

found.. If a particular aptitude interacts with a treatment, the treat-

ment is probably an effective stimulus. If the treatment does not stim-

ulate the learner in some way there is little chance that an aptitude









possessed by that learner will assist or hinder the instructional treat-

ment to affect achievement. It is believed that in this study objectives

did not receive sufficient attention from students to produce an inter-

active effect.



Implications of Findings for Future Studies


A logical study that should be conducted as a result of this inves-

tigation is one in which students are properly trained to criterion in

the utilization of behavioral objectives as a studying strategy before

they participate in an experiment to assess the facilitative effects of

objectives. These students could then be placed in an instructional

system containing objectives and compared on achievement to students

placed in an instructional system without objectives.

Another study that should be conducted as a result of this inves-

tigation is one in which students are required to make overt responses

to behavioral objectives in written materials. Student overt responses

could be the underlining of sentences they believed to be relevant to

the objectives. The performance on an objectives referenced test of

students who correctly identified textual information relevant to the

objectives could be compared to: (1) the performance of students who

made covert responses to the objectives and (2) to students who received

no objectives.

Behavioral objectives may function as cues which prompt teachers

to be more functional as they establish learning set, monitor and react

to student responses, structure questions, provide closure, and sequence

content. In short, the teacher who is aware of his goals is more likely










to be businesslike and efficient in classroom transactions. If this is

true, then the data as reported in the reviewed literature could be

made consistent with the findings of this study in the sense that behav-

ioral objectives may assist teachers who then provide attending assist-

ance to students. This explanation would argue that for behavioral ob-

jectives to be effective they must trigger-and shape teacher behavior

variables and that it is these variables which are likely to influence

student learning. Subsequent studies might stress the search for teach-

ing changes as the dependent variable with the provision of behavioral

objectives and training as the independent variables.



Sunmary


This investigation was designed to test the assumption that behav-

ioral objectives placed in textual material act as effective stimuli to

facilitate learning. Within the context of the design used, evidence

that might be used to support the assumption was not found. While this

finding was not anticipated, it is not totally contradictory to data

reported by other researchers who have investigated behavioral objectives.

Like many previous studies which reported findings similar to this study,

it is possible that certain critical variables were not properly con-

trolled. This possibility requires further examination.




































APPENDICES




































APPENDIX A

APTITUDE MEASURES










Name:




VOCABULARY TEST -- V-2


This is a test of your knowledge of word meanings. Look at the
sample below. One of the five numbered words has the same meaning or
nearly the same meaning as the word above the numbered words. Mark
your answer by putting an X through the number in front of the word
that you select.

jovial

1-refreshing
2-scare
3-thickset
4-wise
(-jolly

The answer to the sample item is number 5; therefore, an X has
been put through number 5.

Your score will be the number marked correctly minus a fraction
of the number marked incorrectly. Therefore, it will not be to your
advantage to guess unless you are able to eliminate one or more of the
answer choices as wrong.

You will have 4 minutes for each of the two parts of this test.
Each part has one page. When you have finished Part 1, STOP. Please
do not go on to Part 2 until you are asked to do so.







DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.


Copyright c 1962 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.












1. handicraft

1-cunning
2-fast boat
3-utility
4-manual skill
.5-guild


Part 1 (4 minutes)

7. unobservant

1-analytic
2-conclusive
3-heedless
4-uninformed
5-timid


13. inclement

1-balmy
2-happy
3-righteous
4-severe
5-apprehensive


8. perambulator


1-coffeepot
2-drunkard
3-baby carriage
4-liar
5-camel


1-abundance
2-evaluation
3-approach
4-extreme
5-foes


3. ejection

1-restoration
2-expulsion
3-reformation
4-bisection
5-exposition

4. yawl

1-tropical storm
2-foghorn
3-carouse
4-sailboat
5-turn

5. listless

1-aggressive
2-adaptable
3-indifferent
4-sorrowful
5-ugly


9. masticate


1-chew
2-massage
3-manufacture
4-create
5-pollute

10. poignancy


1-peignoir
2-gloominess
3-keenness
4-gluttony
5-barony


11. salaam


1-salivation
2-salmon
3-salutation
4-ransom
5-brigand


15. bland


1-disagreeable
2-pale
3-soothing
4-empty
5-musical


16. collusion


1-nerve
2-rest
3-prayer
4-conspiracy
5-disguise


17. degrade


1-lower in rank
2-bend downward
3-disagree
4-sort
5-uplift


6. acceptable

1-affected
2-suitable
3-attractive
4-genial
5-noteworthy


12. compatible

1-abridged
2-congenial
3-compelling
4-related
5-combined


18. evolve


1-develop gradually
2-spin
3-end suddenly
4-implicate
5-include


DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.


STOP.


2. resistant


1-confusing
2-conjuctive
3-systematic
4-assisting
5-bpposing


14. access









Part 2 (4 minutes)

25. morbid


1-pulled
2-worthless leftover
3-wooden pin
4-wheel spoke
5-liquid


1-moral
2-attractive
3-gruesome
4-caustic
5-mysterious


31. complacent


1-friendly
2-smug
3-jealous
4-angry
5-uncivil


20. crescendo


1-repeat
2-treble clef
3-decrease in time
4-eighth note
5-increase in
loudness

21. trilogy

1-set of four
2-a pair
3-vibrations
4-interjections
5-set of three

22. budget

1-civil government
2-capital punishment
3-calendar
4-bulletin
5-financial plan

23. gritty

1-frigid
2-windy
3-adhesive
4-granular
5-unwieldy

24. alignment

1-formation
2-accusation
3-emblem
4-brightness
5-buoyant


26. malignant


1-deliberate
2-superior
3-delirious
4-malicious
5-fragrant

27. hauteur

1-discordancy
2-arrogance
3-languor
4-ignorance
5-utility

28. nihilism

1-psychology
2-optimism
3-anarchism
4-biology
5-chauvinism

29. insipid

1-benign
2-changeable
3-poisonous
4-colorless
5-tasteless

30. droll

1-serious
2-argument
3-dwarf
4-brogue
5-laughable


DO NOT GO BACK TO PART 1 AND DO NOT GO ON TO
ASKED TO DO SO.


32. archaeology


1-obsolete language
2-study of ancient
cultures
3-architectural
structure
4-lineage
5-study of rock
formations

33. canvass

1-crack
2-flower
3-elect
4-wild bird
5-examine

34. correlate

1-ceremony of
crowning
2-relate closely
3-distant relative
4-overweight
5-group of soldiers

35. edifice

1-small insect
2-heir
3-front
4-large building
5-learning

36. flabby

1-lacking firmness
2-giddy
3-talkative
A-noisy and boastful
5-affluent
ANY OTHER TEST UNTIL
STOP.


19. dreg









Name:






FIRST AND LAST NAMES TEST -- MA-3



This is a test of your ability to learn first and last names.
In each part of the test you will study a page of 15 full names,
first and last. After studying the page showing full names you will
turn to a page showing a list of the last names in a different order.
You will be asked to write the first names that go with each last
name.


Here are some practice names. Study
to turn to the next page (1 minute).


them until you are asked


Janet Gregory

Thomas Adams

Roland Donaldson

Patricia Fletcher

Betty Bronson






DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.


Copyright 1962 by Educational Testing Service
Adapted from First Names by L. L. Thurstone










PRACTICE TEST PAGE


The first name in the list below has been completed. Write all
of the other first names that you can remember.




Fletcher

Bronson

Donaldson

Gregory

Adams



Your score will be the number marked correctly. Even if you are
not sure of the correct answer to a question, it will be to your
advantage to guess.

There are two parts in this test. Each part has two pages:

The first of these is a memory page which you are to study
for 3 minutes.

The second is a test page on which you are to write the
first names that go with the last names. You will have
2 minutes to write.

When you have finished Part 1, STOP. Please do not go on to
Part 2 until you are asked to do so.


DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.









MEMORY PAGE FOR PART 1


Study this list. You will be allowed 3 minutes.


Claire Sullivan

Jack Thompson

Leon Chapin

John Reynolds

Joan White

Donald Lambert

Daniel Shaw

Kenneth Murray

Edward Nichols

Jean Wolfe

Carl Brown

Blanche Clark

Roger Lennon

Eloise Cooper

David Burgess


DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.





77



TEST PAGE FOR PART 1



Complete the names below. You have 2 minutes.




Nichols

Cooper

Murray

Chapin

Brown

Reynolds

Sullivan

Lennon

Lambert

Wo lfe

Burgess

Shaw

Thompson

Clark

White










DO NOT TURN TO PART 2 UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.


STOP.










MEMORY PAGE FOR PART 2


Study this list. You will be allowed 3 minutes.



Walter Price

Robert Sweeney

Leo Wells

Shirley Watson

Barbara Lombard

Joseph Hall

Edith Manning

Bruce Green

James O'Donnell

Irene Buchanan

Stella Page

Judy Shea

Priscilla Bardon

Stanley Rhodes

Susan Tracy











DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.


STOP.





79



TEST PAGE FOR PART 2



Complete the names below. You have 2 minutes.




Sweeney

Lombard

O'Donnell

Rhodes

Buchanan

Price

Watson

Page

Green

Tracy

SWells

Bardon

Manning

Shea

Hall









DO NOT GO BACK TO PART 1 AND

DO NOT GO ON TO ANY OTHER TEST UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.


STOP.



































APPENDIX B

BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES TRAINING MATERIALS









RATIONALE

As students pass from grade to grade and the difficulty and nature
of their reading assignments change, it is necessary for subject area
teachers to provide some instruction in specific reading skills related
to their subject area. The purpose of Module 3 is to provide specific
strategies for teaching the major reading skills in the subject areas.
The major skills are: vocabulary, comprehension, study, and word identi-
fication.

The teaching strategies presented in Module 3 can be implemented as
part of the daily instructional program. The suggestions do not require
additional time but for the most part only a slight adjustment in pre-
sent teaching procedures.


OBJECTIVES

Terminal Objective: The teacher will use various strategies for teach-
ing the major subject area reading skills of: vocabulary, comprehension,
study, and word identification.

Specific Objective 1. The teacher will write a single sentence
description of six activities useful for clarifying word meaning in
subject areas and arrange the activities along a continuum of specific
association, functional understanding, and conceptual understanding.

Specific Objective 2. The teacher will list the instructional
steps in the Introspective Comprehension Strategy and prepare an in-
structional plan designed to teach students a strategy for answering
a specific type of question on a reading assignment.

Specific Objective 3. The teacher will identify those components
which formulate the SQ3R study method and help students apply this study
method to a current reading assignment in their textbook.


















Life is tied to the soil or the water in which most plants grow.
Soil is partly physical in its nature, and partly biological. The
basis of soil is sand or clay, which consist of tiny rock particles.
Various forms of erosion break down rocks to start the formation of
soil.

The effective agents of erosion include plant structures, such
as lichens and tree roots. If you peel a lichen from a boulder, you
can see evidence of this erosion: gritty particles on the underside of
the lichen, and pits left on the surface of the boulder.

Soil particles are small enough to hold considerable amounts of
water on their surfaces, and to make the soil itself permeable. Air
and water are therefore permanent parts of the soil. So are the
minerals dissolved in the soil water.






Behavioral Objective: You will identify two permanent parts of the
soil.


Two permanent parts of the soil are and


Question based on the objective:











Behavioral Objective: You will identify the effective agents of
erosion.





Life is tied to the soil or the water in which most plants grow.
Soil is partly physical in its nature, and partly biological. The
basis of soil is sand or clay, which consist of tiny rock particles.
Various forms of erosion break down rocks to start the formation of
soil.

The effective agents of erosion include plant structures, such
as lichens and tree roots. If you peel a lichen from a boulder, you
can see evidence of this erosion: gritty particles on the underside of
the lichen, and pits left on the surface of the boulder.

Soil particles are small enough to hold considerable amounts of
water on their surfaces, and to make the soil itself permeable. Air
and water are therefore permanent parts of the soil. So are the
minerals dissolved in the soil water.




Question based on the objective:


The effective agents of erosion are:

(a) wind and water

(b) polluted air and water

(c) microbes

(d) plant structures and tree roots











Behavioral Objective -- A statement which describes what you will be
able to do after you have received instruction.

Example: The student will list the five parts of speech.

Example: The student will be able to define ecology.


Behavioral Objective: You will identify the definition of the term
"ecology".



No living thing can survive in complete isolation. All organisms,
including man, live in communities, and depend heavily upon one another.
Ecology is the branch of biology which studies this interdependence.
Ecology can then be defined as the branch of biology which studies the
relations of organisms with each other and with their environment.




To determine if you have now accomplished the above objective the
following would be asked:


The branch of biology which studies the relations of organisms with
each other and with their environment is called:


(a) Botany

(b) Population Education


(c) Ecology

(d) Geography





































APPENDIX C

COMPLETE TEXTUAL MATERIALS

WITHOUT OBJECTIVES



































TO THE STUDENT:

READ THROUGH THE WRITTEN MATERIAL WHICH FOLLOWS AND LEARN EVERY-

THING YOU CAN. YOU WILL BE GIVEN A TEST AT THE END OF THE UNIT ON THE

MATERIAL YOU HAVE READ.










Contraceptive Education and Sexual Anatomy

Contraception, Sex, and You

Although some of our parents and friends are still reluctant to
discuss sex and birth control, most of us realize that it is far more
healthy to discuss and understand the roles of sex and contraception
than to sweep them under the rug and have unwanted pregnancies. Don't
be embarrassed to discuss these subjects with doctors, nurses, ministers,
teachers, and other people who can provide you with information.

It is good to know the facts about sexuality and birth control, but
because you acquire such information does not mean you are obligated to
engage in sexual intercourse. However, if you should choose to engage
in sexual intercourse you have the responsibility not to bring an un-
wanted child into the world. Every child should be planned for, loved,
and cared for. No baby should be a "mistake" resulting from lack of
knowledge about birth control or from uncontrolled passion.


How Sex Is Controlled In Humans

Sex is controlled in man and other mammals by an organ called the
pituitary gland. This gland, the size of a pea in humans, is part of
the brain. It gives off body chemicals called hormones: these, in turn,
control most of the other hormone glands in the body. Hormones also
control body growth, metabolism, and the sex glands or gonads.

The sex glands are called the testes in males and ovaries in fe-
males. Beginning with puberty, the pituitary hormones stimulate the
maturation of the testes and ovaries. In turn, male sex hormones are
secreted in the testes of boys and female sex hormones are produced in
the ovaries of girls. The testes then produce sperm and the ovaries are
stimulated to produce eggs. The male sex hormone is called testosterone.
The female sex hormones are estrogen and progesterone. These hormones
also control the secondary sex characteristics such as the amount of
hair, the deepness of voice, and the size of hips and breasts.














6














I-I

Figure 1.
Male reproductive anatomy.
(1) Penis
12) Testicle testiss)
131 Vas deferens (sperm duct)
(4) Prostrate gland
(SI Sperm in seminal vehicles
(61 Bladder
How Babies Are Made

Figure 1 shows a picture of the male sex organs, whose prime repro-
ductive function is the production and delivery of sperm. Sperm are tiny
cells too small to be seen except through a microscope. There are thou-
sands of them in every drop of male fluid, called semen. Each sperm has
a head and a tail and moves itself with a wriggling motion. These sperm
are produced in a male's testes, which are located in the male sac, or
scrotum. When the male sex organ, or penis, is stimulated, it becomes
erect and can be inserted into the woman's birth canal, or vagin4..Dur-
ing sexual intercourse, muscle contractions force hundreds of millions
of sperm out through the penis and into the vagina.


The Female Reproductive System
3











igure 2.
Female reproductive anatomy.
(1) Overies
(2) Eggs(ov*)
(3) Fallopian tubes (oviducts)
(4) Uterus
(5) Vagina










The woman's ovaries produce one tiny egg every 28 days or so. This
release of a mature egg by the ovary is called ovulation.

The egg travels down the oviduct. If one male sperm joins with this
egg in the oviduct, fertilization occurs (figure 3). The egg begins to
develop in the oviduct, multiplying from one cell to two cells and so on
(figure 4). By the time the fertilized egg arrives in the womb, or
uterus, it is ready to implant into'the wall of the uterus. If the egg
does implant (attach), it usually stays and grows for nine month into a
baby. The baby then moves down through the vagina and is born.














(II Egg released from ovary into Fallopian tube


2 0-




















I V gure4. A fertilized egg grows into a multicellular embryo
(4) FSr tiled ego plant in lining o uterus through cell division.

Figure Conception.
The Unfertilized Egg
If the egg cell is not fertilized by a sperm in the oviduct, it moves
into the uterus, breaks apart and is absorbed or carried out of the body
through the vagina. Part of the spongy lining of the uterus which was
prepared to receive and nourish the egg cell is sloughed off each month if
pregnancy does not occur; this is called the "period" of bleeding, or
menstrual flow.









Contraception (Birth Control)

Planning Babies Not A New Idea

The desire to control the number of children in a family is actu-
ally a very old idea. The three methods historically used to achieve
this have been infanticide (killing a baby after birth), abortion
(prevention after conception but before birth), and contraception (pre-
vention before conception). Few societies use infanticide to control
family size today and abortion is morally wrong in the minds of many
people.

The Goal of Contraception

The goal of contraception is to keep the male sperm from fertiliz-
ing the female egg. There are many different kinds of contraceptive
devices that help a couple prevent pregnancy, and these will be dis-
cussed.

Some methods of contraception are easier to use than others and
have lower failure rates than others. There is no one ideal method for
every couple. Expense, dependability, safety and convenience are all
factors to consider.

******
Methods that work best "Risky" methods Methods that don't work

oral pill Foam, cream douche
,IUD suppositories feminine spray
diaphragm & jelly withdrawal vaseline
condom & foam rhythm saran wrap
condom lactation having intercourse while
standing up
having intercourse during
the "period"

Contraceptive Methods Obtained From Doctors and Clinics

This first group of methods includes those that require a pelvic
examination and medical prescription. These are considered to be the
most effective methods because they rarely fail. If is important to
remember that any method is only as effective as its user. The oral
pill and the intrauterine device (IUD) have the lowest failure rates.








Contraceptive Methods Obtained From Doctors and Clinics- Continued

(1) Oral Contraceptives (birth control pills)

How Birth Control Pills Work

Birth control pills consist of the female hormones estrogen and
progesterone, both of which exist naturally in humans and are given off
by the ovaries. As long as a certain level of estrogen is maintained in
the blood, the ovaries will not release any eggs. When a woman takes
birth control pills every day, the estrogen of the pill maintains this
level and prevents any egg from being released. There is no egg for the
sperm to fertilize the egg; thus, the woman cannot become pregnant so
long as the pills are taken correctly. This method, if followed accord-
ing to directions, is almost 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

How The Pill Is Taken













Woman taking Birth Control Pill Birth Control Pills in Container


There are many different kinds of birth control pills. Therefore,
the procedure for taking birth control pills may be different, depending
on the type of pill a woman takes. Regardless of the type of birth
control used it is important to understand that it is always the woman
who takes the birth control pill and that the pill is placed in the
mouth and swallowed (like taking an aspirin). Some birth control packs
S.t: I,
















contain 21 pills and some contain 28 pills. It is important to under-
stand a doctor's or nurse's directions on how to take the pill if a
person chooses oral contraception as a birth control method. Usually,
a pill is taken every day.










What If A Person Forgets To Take A Pill?

If a pill is forgotten, it should be taken as soon as it is remem-
bered; and the next pill is taken at the regular time. If the pill is
forgotten for more than 1 day, the woman should continue to take the
pills for the remainder of that month, but should in addition use anoth-
ther method of birth control such as the condom and foam or a diaphragm
(if the person got the diaphragm from a doctor).


The Pill and Possible Dangers

The possible dangers of the birth control pill is something which
is presently being studied by the medical community. There are many
arguments against using the birth control pill. Almost everything we do
involves risks.

Doctors always obtain a thorough medical history from a woman prior
to prescribing the Pill for her; and if her medical history indicates
danger should she take the Pill, the doctor will suggest other methods.
A Pap smear is also done prior to prescribing the Pill. A Pap smear is
a sample of cells that is easily and painlessly taken by the doctor from
the opening into the uterus (cervix). This sample tells the doctor if
the patient has cells that. appear to be abnormal or cancerous. If they
do appear to be cancerous, the Pill is not prescribed and appropriate
treatment is given.

The important point to remember is that pills should be taken only
upon prescription by a doctor who will examine you and prescribe the
correct pill. Do Not borrow pills from your sister or a friend or use
their prescription.


The Pill and Side Effects

Various side effects occur in one woman out of ten -- such things
as headaches, nausea, depression, weight loss or gain, breast tenderness.
In most cases these side effects disappear after a woman has been taking
the pill for two or three months. In any case, the doctor who pre-
scribed the pill should be kept informed so that he or she can judge the
proper course of action.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs