1

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS

USING SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES

Dr.N.Asokan1 , K.S.Raja muthu kumar

2

1Principal, Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology, Pudukottai, Tamilnadu- 622 507.

Email : ntvasokan@gmail.com 2HOD –Mechanical Department, Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology, Pudukottai,

ABSTRACT

In education, objectives indicate what we want students to learn; they are “explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected to be changed by the educative process” (Bloom et al. , 1956,

p.26). Objectives are especially important in teaching because teaching is an intentional and reasoned

act. Stated simply, when teachers teach, they want students to learn. What teachers want them to learn as a result of teaching are objectives.

Teachers need an organizing framework that increases precision and most important, promotes

understanding. The framework is two-dimensional, which are cognitive process and knowledge.

We would like to address the following four most important organizing questions in our study. 1. What is important for the students to learn in the limited school and class- room time

available? (Learning question)

2. How does one plan and deliver instruction that will result in high levels of learning for large numbers of students? (the instruction question)

3. How does one select or design assessment instruments and procedures that provide accurate

information about how well students are learning? (the assessment question) 4. How does one ensure that objectives, instruction, and assessment are consistent with one

another? (the alignment question)

This study was carried out for 56 students of first year under graduate mechanical engineering enrolled

during 2008 – 2009 for Engineering Mechanics subject. we gain a deeper-level examination of alignment. of objectives, instructional activities, and assessments.

The answer to four most important organizing questions to address the issues and concerns pertaining

to education, teaching learning and assessing is restating the objectives in terms of the classification of the Taxonomy table to make the strong alignment of objectives, instruction and assessment.

Staff members expressed their satisfaction regarding “the way they allocate the time in the class room

and by the emphasis they convey to their students about what is really important”, satisfying the

teachers systematically plan a way of effectively facilitating student’s learning of that objective.

Key words: Taxonomy, Instructional objectives, Teaching-learning-assessing, Mastery.

1 INTRODUCTION

In life, objectives help us to focus our attention and our efforts; they indicate what we

want to accomplish. In education, objectives indicate what we want students to learn. They are

“explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected to be changed by the educative

process” (Bloom,1956,p.26). Objectives are especially important in teaching because teaching is an intentional and reasoned act. Teaching is intentional because we always teach for some purpose,

primarily to facilitate student learning. Teaching is reasoned because what teachers teach their students

is judged by them to be worthwhile. The reasoned aspect of teaching relates to what objectives teachers select for their students. The

intentional aspect of teaching concerns how teachers help students achieve the teachers’ objectives,

that is, learning environments the teachers create and the activities and experiences they provide. The learning environments, activities, and experiences should be aligned with, or be consistent with, the

selected objectives.

2

Teachers’ objectives may be explicit or implicit, clearly or fuzzily conceived, easily measurable

or not. They may be called something other than objectives. In the past they were called aims,

purposes, goals, and guiding outcomes (Bobbitt,1918;Rugg,1926a and b). Today they are more likely to be referred to as content standards or curriculum standards (Kendall and Marzano, 1996;

Glatthorn,1998). Regardless of how they are stated and what they are called, objectives are present in

virtually all teaching. Stated simply, when we teach, we want our students to learn. What we want them to learn as a result of our teaching are our objectives.

1.1 Three levels of objectives: global, educational, and instructional.

Educational objectives can be written at three levels of specificity. They can be general program goals

to be achieved over a year or a number of years, objectives for a particular course or unit within a

course, or objectives for a particular lesson within a unit (Krathwohl, 1964; Krathwohl and Payne,

1971). The taxonomy is designed to be most useful in planning instruction and assessment at the

course or unit level.

Table 1. Relationship of Global, Educational, and Instructional Objectives

LEVEL OF OBJECTIVE

GLOBAL EDUCATIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL

Scope Broad Moderate Narrow

TIME NEEDED TO

LEARN

One or more years

(often many) Weeks or months Hours or days

PURPOSE OR FUNCTION

Provide vision Design curriculum Prepare lesson plans

EXAMPLE OF USE

Plan a multiyear

curriculum (e.g., elementary

reading)

Plan units of instruction

Plan daily activities, experiences, and exercises

(Adopted from Anderson et al., 2001, p17.)

1.2 The need for a frame work When teachers are confronted with exceedingly large number of vague objectives, we need to

organize and to make the objectives more precise. In a nutshell, then teachers need an organizing

framework that increases precision and, most important, promotes understanding. A framework consists of a set of categories related to a single phenomenon. The criteria that

are relevant in the sorting process are determined by a set of organizing principles-principles that are

used to differentiate among the categories. Once classified, the characteristics of each category as well

as the characteristics of the other categories in the framework help us to better understand what is placed in the category.

A taxonomy is a special kind of framework. In a taxonomy the categories lie align a

continuum. The continuum (e.g., the wave frequencies underlying color, the atomic structure underlying the periodic table of the elements) becomes one of the major organizing principles of the

framework. In Taxonomy we are classifying objectives.

The framework is two-dimensional, (Anderson et al. 2001) which are cognitive process and knowledge. The interrelationships between cognitive and knowledge is the Taxonomy Table. The

categories: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. The continuum underlying

the cognitive process dimension is assumed to be cognitive complexity; that is, Understand is believed

to be more cognitively complex than Remember, Apply is believed to be more cognitively complex than Understand and so on.

“Historically shared knowledge” defines the subject matter of the academic discipline. This

“Historically shared knowledge” is not static; changes are made as new ideas and evidence are accepted by the scholarly community. For educational purposes, subject matter content must be

“packaged” in some way. “Packaging involves selecting and organizing content so it can be presented

in “Forms that are pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background

presented by the students” (Shulman, 1987, p.15).

3

The knowledge dimension contains four categories: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and

Metacognitive. These categories are assumed to lie along a continuum from concrete (Factual) to

abstract (Metacognitive).The conceptual and procedural categories overlap in terms of abstractness. The Conceptual and Procedural categories overlap in terms of abstractness, with some procedural

knowledge being more concrete than the most abstract conceptual knowledge.

1.3 The Taxonomy Table, Objectives, Instruction, Assessment and Alignment At an abstract level, the answer for what is worth learning defines what it means to be an

educated person. In large part, by the way teacher allocate time in the classroom and by the emphasis

teacher convey to their students about what is really important.

Once an objective has been placed into a particular cell of the Taxonomy Table, we can begin systematically to attack the problem of helping students achieve that objective.

First, different types of objectives require different instructional approaches, that is, different

learning activities, different curricular materials, and different teacher and students roles. Second, similar types of objectives – regardless of differences in the topic or subject matter – may require

similar instructional approaches (Joyce and Weil, 1996).

Different types of objectives require different approaches to assessment. Similar types of

objectives likely involve similar approaches to assessment. Alignment refers to the degree of correspondence among the objectives, instruction and

assessment. If instruction is not aligned with assessments, then even high-quality instruction will not

likely influence student performance on those assessments. Similarly, if assessments are not aligned with objectives then the results of the assessments will not reflect achievement of those objectives.

1.4 Using our increased understanding We may gain a better understanding of an objective using the Taxonomy table, to help (Anderson et al. 2001) teachers to address the issues and concerns pertaining to education, teaching

learning and assessing.

We would like to address the following four most important organizing questions in our study.

1. What is important for students to learn in the limited classroom time available? (the learning question)

2. How does one plan and deliver instruction that will result in high levels of learning for

large numbers of students? (the instruction question) 3. How does one select or design assessment instruments and procedures that provide

accurate information about how well students are learning?(the assessment question)

4. How does one ensure that objectives, instruction, and assessment are consistent with one another? (the alignment question)

2 METHODS

This study was carried out and delimited to 56 students of first year undergraduate mechanical engineering enrolled during 2008 – 2009 for first unit of Engineering Mechanics subject at Mount

Zion College of engineering and technology, Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu, India. Planning that is

“objective –driven” begins with specifying instructional objectives from University syllabus (affiliated system) in terms of the classification of the Taxonomy table followed by “activity –driven”, which

gives initial emphasis to the instructional activities and finally, operating from a “test-driven”

perspective starts with concerns for assessment.

The traditional learning objectives (Linda.V et al., 2009) of engineering curricula have

focused on fundamental knowledge, computational skills and their application. Objectives exist in

many forms, ranging from highly specific to global and from explicit to implicit. The most commonly used model of educational objectives is based on the work of Ralph Tyler(1949). Tyler suggested that

“the most useful form for stating objectives is to express them in terms which identify both the kind of

behavior to be developed in the student and the content.

2.1 Objectives Framework is a tool to help educators clarify and communicate what they intend students to

learn as a result of instruction. This intension is called “Objective”. To facilitate communication,

4

Anderson et al., (2001) have adopted a standard format for stating objectives. The student will be able

to, or learn to verb noun, where the verb indicted the cognitive process and the noun indicates the

knowledge.

Eight objectives were established for the unit 1 of Engineering Mechanics. On completion of the study of the important Basics & Statics of particles the student will be

able

1.0 To understand the importance of Units & Dimensions

2.0 To list the Laws of Mechanics 2.1 To define Lami’s theorem

2.2 To define Parallelogram Law of forces

2.3 To define Triangular Law of forces. 3.0 To Apply the concept of Vectors

3.1 To execute vector operations

3.2 To represent forces in Vectorial form 3.3 To represent moments in Vectorial form

4.0 To explain the concept of forces

4.1 To explain Resolution of forces

4.2 To explain Composition of forces 5.0 To explain Equilibrium of a particle

5.1 To explain Equilibrium of a particle in space.

6.0 To solve problems in Equivalent systems of forces. 7.0 To explain the concept of Principle of transmissibility.

8.0 To explain the concept of single equivalent force.

2.2 Instructions

The following activities carried out during the teaching, learning and assessing process.

2.2.1 Activity 1

Students were said to Understand the importance of Units & Dimensions (objective 1.0) when they were able to construct meaning from instructional messages, including oral, written and graphic

communication. Students Understand when they build connections between the “new” knowledge to

be gained and their prior knowledge. The incoming knowledge is integrated with existing schemas and

cognitive frameworks. Units & Dimensions have been explained through instructional messages, including oral, written and graphic communication.

2.2.2 Activity 2

When objective of instruction is to promote retention of the presented material (Objective 2.0)

in much the same form as it was taught, the relevant process category is Remember. Remembering involves retrieving relevant knowledge from long term memory. Lami’s theorem, Parallelogram Law

of forces and Triangular Law of forces were presented as it was in the text book for the storage of the

same in the long term memory.

2.2.3 Activity 3 and 6

Apply (Objective 3.0 and 6.0) involves using procedures to perform exercises or solve

problems. An exercise is a task for which the student already knows the proper procedures to use, so

the student had developed a fairly routinized approach to it. Execute or represent have two qualities, first, they consist of a sequence of steps that are generally followed in a fixed order. Second, when the

steps are performed correctly the end result is a predetermined answer. The concept of Vectors was

explained through worked out examples. The continuum underlying the cognitive process dimension

is assumed to be cognitive complexity; that is, Understand is believed to be more cognitively complex than Remember, Apply is believed to be more cognitively complex than Understand and so on.

2.2.4 Activity 4, 5, and 8

In Explaining the Objectives 4.0, 5.0, and 8.0, students were able to construct and use a cause

and effect model of a system. A complete explanation involves constructing a cause and effect model,

5

including each major part in a system or each major event in the chain, and using the model to

determine how a change in one part of the system or one “link” in the chain affects a change in another

part. How each force acting on a particle in space affects the equilibrium condition of the particle has been explained with worked out problems.

2.2.5 Activity 7

In Explaining the Objectives 7.0, students were able to understand how the force replaced in a body from one point to another point does not affect the condition of the body.

2.3 Assessment Summative assessment was being made according to the end semester examination model.

2.3.1 Assessment 1and 2

Objective 1.0 has been assessed through recalling: a student remembers previously learned

information when given a prompt. For e.g. (Assessment 1) What is the MKS unit for force?

(Assessment 2) List three Laws of Mechanics, Define Lami’s theorem, Define Parallelogram Law of

forces and Define Triangular Law of forces.

2.3.2 Assessment 3, 6, 4, 5, and 8

Objectives 3.0, 6.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 8.0 have been assessed through executing; a student is given

a familiar task that can be performed using a well known procedure. Furthermore, because the

emphasis is on the procedure as well as the answers, students may be required not only to find answer but also to show their work. For e.g. Represent a 50 N force acting along X axis in vectorial form and

Find the equilibrant if a man of mass 60kg is standing on a flat floor.

2.3.3 Assessment 7

Objectives 7.0 has been assessed through explaining: When given a description of a system, a student develops and uses a cause and effect model of the system. e.g. Explain the principle of

transmissibility – involves finding a principle that accounts for a given event.

6

Table 2. Analysis of the unit – 1 Objectives in terms of the Taxonomy Table based on stated Objectives

KNOWLEDGE

DIMENSION

THE COGNITIVE PROCESS DIMENSION

1.

REMEMBER

2.

UNDERSTAND

3.

APPLY

4.

ANALYZE

5.

EVALUATE

6.

CREATE

A.

FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE

Objective 2.1,

2.2, 2.3

Activity 2

Assessment 1

and 2

Objective 1.0

Activity 1

B.

CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE

Objective 4.1,

4.2, 5.1, 7.0, 8.0

Activity 4, 5,7

and 8

Assessment 7

C.

PROCEDURAL

KNOWLEDGE

Activity 3 and 6

Activity 4, 5,

and 8

Objective

3.1, 3,2,

3.3, 6.0

Assessment

3.1, 3,2, 3.3

and 6

Assessment

4,5, and 8

D.

META-

COGNITIVE

KNOWLEDGE

3 Findings and Discussion By determining whether notations for all three -objectives, instructional activities, and

assessments-appear together in the individual cells of the table 2 (strong alignment – Cell A1 and B2– Objective 2.0 and 7.0 respectively), or some cells contain only two of them (weaker alignment – Cell

A2, B2 and C3 – Objectives 1.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 8.0 and 3.1, 3,2, 3.3, and 6.0), or cells contain only one

of them (weakest alignment – Cell C2 - Activity 3 and 6 and Activity 4, 5, and 8), we gain a deeper-level examination of alignment. This examination emphasizes consistency in terms of intended student

learning (objectives 2.0 and 7.0).

Linda.V et al., (2009) considered what has traditionally been the focus of engineering curricula: mastery of the core competencies. Empirical data show that a greater degree of engagement

or active learning results in higher mastery (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Prince, 2004; Prince and

Felder, 2006; Turner et al., 1998; Weinstein and Mayer, 1986).

Eisner (1979) pointed out that not all objectives need to produce the same student learning. An expressive outcome may derive from an experience or activity. Out of 56 students 49 students

(87.50% of students) were able to master the objective 2.0, and 39 students (69.64%) were able to

master the objective 7.0, since these objectives have strong alignment, only 26 students (46.42% of students) were master the objectives 1.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 8.0 and 3.1, 3,2, 3.3, and 6.0 since these

objectives have weaker alignment and due to Understand is believed to be more cognitively complex

than Remember, Apply is believed to be more cognitively complex than Understand and so on.

Inferences about objectives based on assessment can come from the sources that the actual assessment is sufficient when select-type formats with correct answers were used. The validity and

7

reliability of the classroom tests and homework assignments are usually not established (Allen et al.,

2008). The validity of the assessment refers (Anderson et al. 2001, p96) to the assessment used by the

teacher provides him/her with the information about how well the students (mastered) achieved (or are achieving) the objective.

The answer to four most important organizing questions to address the issues and concerns

pertaining to education, teaching learning and assessing is restating the objectives as detailed below in terms of the classification of the Taxonomy table to make the strong alignment of objectives,

instruction and assessment,

1.0 To remember Units & Dimensions 1.1 To explain Units & Dimensions

2.0 To list the Laws of Mechanics

2.1 To define Lami’s theorem 2.2 To define Parallelogram Law of forces

2.3 To define Triangular Law of forces.

3.0 To understand the concept of Vectors

3.1 To execute vector operations 3.2 To solve problems in vector operations

3.3 To represent forces in Vectorial form

3.4 To solve problems by representing forces in Vectorial form 3.5 To represent moments in Vectorial form

3.6 To solve problems by representing moments in Vectorial form

4.0 To explain the concept of forces 4.1 To explain Resolution of forces

4.2 To solve problems in Resolution of forces

4.3 To explain Composition of forces

4.4 To solve problems in Composition of forces 5.0 To explain Equilibrium of a particle

5.1 To explain Equilibrium of a particle in space.

5.2 To solve problems in Equilibrium of a particle in space. 6.0 To understand Equivalent systems of forces.

6.1 To solve problems in Equivalent systems of forces.

7.0 To explain the concept of Principle of transmissibility. 8.0 To explain the concept of single equivalent force.

8.1 To solve problems in single equivalent force

Staff members expressed their satisfaction through survey regarding “the way they allocate the

time in the class room and by the emphasis they convey to their students about what is really important”, satisfying the teachers systematically plan a way of effectively facilitating student’s

learning of that objective.

Taxonomy helps teachers translate standards into a common language for comparison with what they personally hope to achieve, and by presenting the variety of possibilities for consideration.

Classifying a particular objective within the framework then helps teachers systematically plan a way

of effectively facilitating students learning of that objective. Taxonomy is intended to help teachers

teach, learns learn and assessors assess.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The emphasis is on student-oriented, learning-based, explicit, and assessable statements of intended

cognitive outcomes. Taxonomy will help teachers make sense of the curriculum, plan instruction and

design assessment that are aligned with the objectives inherent in the curriculum and ultimately

improve their teaching quality, Furthermore, framework should provide a common way of thinking

about and a common vocabulary for talking about teaching the enhances communication among

teachers themselves and among teachers, teacher educators, curriculum coordinators, assessment

specialists, and school administrators.

8

5 REFERENCES

[1] Allen, K.,T. Reed-Rhoads, R.A. Terry, T.J. Murphy, and A.D. Stone. Coefficient alpha: An

engineer’s interpretation of test reliability. Journal of Engineering Education, 2008, 97 (1): 87-94.

[2] Anderson,L.W & Krathwohl, D.R. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: arevison

of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, Addision Weseley Longman Ins, United States, 2001.

[3] Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.j., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. Taxonomy of

educational objectives : Handbook I : Congintive domain. New York : David Mckay, 1956.

[4] Bobbit, F. The curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918.

[5] Rugg, H. Curriculum – making and the scientific study of education since 1910. In H.Rugg (Ed.),

Twenty – Sixth yearbook of the National Society for the study of Education, Part I. Bloomington, IL:

Public schools publishing company, 1926a.

[6] Rugg, H., et al. The foundations of curriculum-making. In H.Rugg (Ed.), Twenty – Sixth yearbook

of the National Society for the study of Education, Part II. Bloomington, IL: Public schools publishing

company, 1926b.

[7] Kendall, J.S., & marzano, R.J. Content Knowledge. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional

Educational Laboratory. 1996.

[8] Glatthorn,A.A. Performance assessment and standards-based curricula: The achievement cycle.

Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 1998.

[9] Krathwohl, D.R. The Taxonomy of educational objectives: Its use in curriculum building. In

C.M.Lindvall (Ed.), Defining educational objectives (pp.19-36). Pitts-burgh: University of Pittsburgh

Press, 1964.

[10] Krathwohl, D.R. & Payne, D.A. Defining and assessing educational objectives.In R.L.Thorndike

(Ed.), Educational measurement (pp.17-45). Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1971.

[11] Shulman, L. Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational

review, 57, 1-22, 1987.

[12] Joyce, B., and Weil,M. Models of teaching (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.

[13] Linda.V, Jonathan .S, Roberta J.H. The Four-Domain Development Diagram: A Guide for

Holistic Design of Effective Learning Experiences For the Twenty-first Century Engineer. Journal of

Engineering Education January 2009, Vol.98 No.1:67-78.

[14] Tyler, R.W. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago press,

1949.

[15] Weinstein,C.E., & Mayer, R. The teaching of learning strategies. In M.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook

of research on teaching, 3 rd ed, 1986, pp.315-327. New York: Macmillan.