1. 1
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS
USING SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
Dr.N.Asokan1
, K.S.Raja muthu kumar2
1
Principal, Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology, Pudukottai, Tamilnadu- 622 507.
Email : ntvasokan@gmail.com
2
HOD –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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.