Designing & Teaching Learning Goals & Objectives. Robert J. Marzano

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ reading by the end of the school year.

      As these examples illustrate, performance goals don't describe content as much as they do a specific score or grade. Mastery goals, by definition, articulate the content that is to be learned. For example, the following are mastery goals:

      Students will be able to use word segmentation and syllables to decode an unrecognized word.

      Students will be able to compare ordinal numbers through the fifth position (that is, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th).

      Although each type of goal may be associated with increased student achievement, research indicates that mastery goals are typically associated with higher order learning and better retention than are performance goals, especially for more challenging content. For example, in his meta-analysis, Christopher Utman (1997) found an average effect size of .53 (a 20 percentile point gain) for mastery versus performance goals for grade school students completing a complex task. Research by Judith Meece (1991) revealed that teachers who used mastery goals in their classrooms promoted more meaningful learning, provided more developmentally appropriate instruction, and supported student autonomy more than did teachers with performance-oriented classrooms.

      Noncognitive Goals

      Much of the research on goals over the decades has focused on academic goals, sometimes referred to as cognitive goals. However, attention to noncognitive goals in education has increased in recent years. For example, a 2005 issue of Educational Assessment was devoted to noncognitive goals. In their introduction to the volume, editors Jamal Abedi and Harold F. O'Neil noted that “the affective (feeling) and psychomotor (doing) issues affect cognitive performance and are worthwhile domains of learning themselves” (p. 147). The remainder of the volume focused on the role of noncognitive goals such as motivation and affect in education.

      Joseph Durlak and Roger Weissberg (2007) investigated the effects of after-school programs on noncognitive goals such as students' personal and social skills. They limited their analysis to programs that used “evidence-based” instructional strategies, which they defined as “well-sequenced” and “active.” Relative to well-sequenced, Durlak and Weissberg noted:

      New skills cannot be acquired immediately. It takes time and effort to develop new behaviors and often more complicated skills must be broken down into smaller steps and sequentially mastered. Therefore, a coordinated sequence of activities is required that links the learning steps and provides youth with opportunities to connect these steps. Usually, this occurs through lesson plans or program manuals, particularly if programs use or adapt established criteria. (p. 10)

      About active forms of learning, they noted:

      Active forms of learning require youth to act on the material. That is, after youth receive some basic instruction they should then have the opportunity to practice new behaviors and receive feedback on their performance. This is accomplished through role playing and other types of behavioral rehearsal strategies, and the cycle of practice and feedback continues until mastery is achieved. These hands-on forms of learning are much preferred over exclusively didactic instruction, which rarely translates into behavioral change. (p. 10)

      After examining ten studies that met their criterion of using evidence-based strategies, they concluded that after-school programs reduced problem behaviors and contributed significantly to student achievement and positive self-concept.

      Durlak and Weissberg's study is noteworthy because it demonstrates that noncognitive goals can be a viable instructional focus. It is also noteworthy because it supports the linkage between noncognitive goals and achievement outcomes. Their meta-analysis found that effective after-school programs produced a positive impact on participating students' academic achievement with an effect size of .31, which translates to a 12 percentile point gain.

      Jeff Valentine, David DuBois, and Harris Cooper (2004) conducted a meta-analysis that sheds light on the importance of noncognitive goals. They examined the effects of self-beliefs on student achievement. They synthesized the results of studies that measured student academic achievement and self-beliefs at an initial point and then again at a later point. They found that positive student self-beliefs had a small but significant influence (an effect size of .16 over 60 studies) on subsequent student achievement. Valentine et al. note that noncognitive goals that address students' self-beliefs are most effective when tailored to the content being taught. For example, noncognitive goals regarding beliefs about mathematics (let's say) have a stronger effect on achievement in mathematics than noncognitive goals regarding beliefs about academics in general.

Cooperative Learning and Noncognitive Goals

      When considering noncognitive goals, one must consider cooperative learning as a necessary instructional component. Cooperative learning has a rich body of research in its own right. Cary Roseth, David Johnson, and Roger Johnson (2008) used a model based in social interdependence theory to investigate the relationship between cooperative goal structures and student achievement and peer relations in adolescent students, updating and elaborating on their earlier meta-analyses (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981). They characterized cooperative goal structures as those involving “positive interdependence.” This means that they involve linked positive outcomes, mutually beneficial actions, and sharing of resources. Roseth, Johnson, and Johnson (2008) found that cooperative goal structures involving positive interdependence had a stronger relationship with achievement than did competitive or individualistic goal structures (average effect sizes .57 and .65, respectively). They concluded:

      By implication, this study suggests that the more early adolescents' teachers structure students' academic goals cooperatively (as opposed to competitively or individualistically), (a) the more students will tend to achieve, (b) the more positive students' relationships will tend to be, and (c) the more higher levels of achievement will be associated with more positive peer relationships. (p. 237)

      Taking this research at face value, it would be easy to conclude that cooperative goal structures are superior to other forms of goal structure regardless of the type of goal being addressed—cognitive or noncognitive. Witness the impressive results reported in table 1.2 (page 10) by David Johnson, Geoffrey Maruyama, Roger Johnson, Deborah Nelson, and Linda Skon (1981) for cooperative learning versus individual student competition (an effect size of .78 in favor of cooperative learning) and cooperative learning versus individual student tasks (an effect size of .78 in favor of cooperative learning). However, the actual practice of cooperative learning leans more toward a focus on noncognitive goals. This is demonstrated in the literature that describes how teachers might implement cooperative learning in their classrooms, such as Cooperation in the Classroom (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998) and Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). In Learning Together and Alone, Roger Johnson and David Johnson make the following distinction:

      A learning goal is a desired future state of demonstrating competence or mastery in the subject area being studied. The goal structure specifies the ways in which students will interact with each other and the teacher to achieve the goal. Students may interact to promote each other's success or obstruct each other's success. Students may also avoid interaction and thereby have no effect on the success or failure of others. Whenever people strive to achieve a goal, they may engage in cooperative, competitive, or individualistic efforts. (p. 3, emphasis in original)

      This clears up much of the potential confusion regarding the literature on cooperative goal structures. Cooperative goals are not established in lieu of individual goals. Instead, cooperative goal structures are established to help students accomplish academic goals. Individual students are still held accountable for accomplishing academic goals, but those individual students do not have to work in isolation or in СКАЧАТЬ