An Investigation into Teachers’ State of Formulation and Utilization of Instructional Objectives

  • Solomon Melesse


This study was designed to assess Bahir Dar Preparatory School teachers‟ state of formulating and utilizing of instructional objectives. In an attempt to realize this research objective, 54 teachers of Bahir Dar Preparation School were taken as a target population. Out of these, 13 teachers were selected using random sampling technique from the list available in the school. To gather data from the selected teachers, observation and document analysis were used. Each of the 13 teachers was observed two times by the researcher and curriculum expert. Document analysis was also made on the instructional objectives available from the lesson plans secured by the two data collectors. Data obtained from document analysis and observation were analyzed using percentages and one sampled t-test, respectively. The findings indicate that instructional objectives were clear, measurable, and observable. They indicate the content in which the learner operates his/her learned behavior. They are also appropriate to learners‟ potential and are constructed using concrete terminologies. They are achievable (doable) within the available time, and stated in terms of the learner‟s behavior. However, most objectives were formulated from the cognitive domain, mainly from lower order behavioral changes; some from the psychomotor domain but none from the affective domain. On the other hand, the consideration of instructional objectives in case of revising previous lesson contents and asking questions that bring high students‟ performance, the intended learning outcomes and employing appropriate methods, materials, modalities that foster student achievement of the formulated learning outcomes were above the expected value. The performance levels of teachers at communicating the instructional objectives to students and at assessing students‟ attainment of the intended learning outcomes were below the expected value. In light of these findings, there seems to be a need to provid orientations to the teachers on the benefits of communicating lesson objectives at the onset of a session/lesson delivery. In addition, training with emphasis on the ways and means of assessing students‟ attainment of the intended learning outcomes and maintaining a reasonable balance between and among instructional objectives from the three domains and their respective levels seem in order.


Download data is not yet available.


Airasian, P, W. (1997). Classroom Assessment (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill com. Inc.
Amare Asgedom. (1998). Content Analysis Methodology and Application to Curriculum Evaluation. IER Flambeau, 6(1).
Borich, G, D. (1988). Effective Teaching Methods. New York: Merril Publishing com. Inc.
Botts, R, E. and Reed, D.R. (1970). Individual Instruction. Loss Angeles: Lucas Brothers Publishers.
Cohen, L., et al. (1996). A Guide to Teaching Practice. 4th ed. Great Britain: Crystled, Stilues Plc.
Cole, P, G. and Chan, L, K. (1994). Teaching Principle and Practice. 2nded. Australia: McPherson's Printed Hall.
CruickShank, D. et al. (1995). The Act of Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Davis,I. (1981). Instructional Techniques. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.
Deribssa Dufera, et al (1999). Principles of Curriculum Inquiry. Distance Material for In-service Trainees. Addis Ababa University (Unpublished)
Eggan, P. and Kauchank, D. (1994). Educational Psychology: Windows of Teaching. New York: Prentice Hall Inc.
Krathwohl, D, R. (1969). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Use in Curriculum. In C.M. Lindval (ed.) Defining Educational Objectives. University of Pitts Bulgh Press. Lindval, C,M. (1969). Defining Educational Objectives. University of Pitts Burgh Press.
McNeil, J, D. (1969). Concomitant of Using Behavioral Objectives in Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness. In R.C. Anderson, et. al (eds) Current Research on Instruction. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Mehren, W.A.(1984). Measurement and Evaluation in Educational Psychology. Florida: Holt, Richechart and Wiston Inc.
Sosniak, L.A. (1995). Educational Objectives. In T.Hustinand T.N. Potleth Waite(eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education. Vol.(3) 2nd ed. UK: Elesvier Science Ltd.
Stone, E. (1983). Psychology of Education: A Pedagogical Approach. New York: Methue Inc.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. USA, Sanfrancisco: Harcourt Brace and World Inc.
Tilahun Begashaw, et al. (2004). Assessment of the Performance of Cluster Resource Centers of Primary Schools in Dire Dawa Administrative Council. Research Bulletin12(2), Bahir Dar University.
White, R.T. et al. (1986). Research on Educational Science. In M.C. Whittrocks (ed.). Handbook of Research on Education. Vol. 2, 3rd ed. New York: McMillan Inc.
Wulf, C. (1995). Education as a Field of Study. In T. Hustin and T.N. Waite (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Education. Vol.3 2nd ed. UK: Elesvier Science Ltd.
How to Cite
MELESSE, Solomon. An Investigation into Teachers’ State of Formulation and Utilization of Instructional Objectives. The Ethiopian Journal of Higher Education, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 2, p. 71 - 101, june 2007. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 24 sep. 2017.