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

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 competition to accomplish those goals. Additionally, cooperative structures are particularly useful when focusing on noncognitive goals because cooperative learning skills are commonly the very targets of many noncognitive goals.

      Another perspective on the power of cooperative goal structures to enhance noncognitive goals was highlighted by Marika Ginsburg-Block, Cynthia Rohrbeck, and John Fantuzzo (2006). They conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of peer-assisted learning on elementary school students' social skills, self-concept, and behavior. They found effect sizes of .52, .40, and .65 for noncognitive goals involving social skills, self-concept, and behavior, respectively (translating to 20, 16, and 24 percentile point gains). Table 1.2 reports much of the research on cooperative learning.

Table 1.2 Research Results for Cooperative Learning

Communicating Goals and Providing Feedback

      If goals provide clear targets for learning, then feedback may be thought of as information that facilitates the process of reaching those targets. Researchers John Hattie and Helen Timperley (2007) claim that in educational settings “the main purpose of feedback is to reduce discrepancies between current understandings and performance and a goal” (p. 86). Their comprehensive review synthesized research on the power of feedback to improve student achievement. Noting that many of the individual findings included in feedback meta-analyses are negative (showing that feedback sometimes inhibits performance), Hattie and Timperley distinguished between the effects of feedback about the task, the process, self-regulation, and the self. Feedback regarding the task, process, and self-regulation is often effective, whereas feedback regarding the self (often delivered as praise) typically does not enhance learning and achievement. They concluded:

      Learning can be enhanced to the degree that students share the challenging goals of learning, adopt self-assessment and evaluation strategies, and develop error detection procedures and heightened self-efficacy to tackle more challenging tasks leading to mastery and understanding of lessons. (p. 103).

      Table 1.3 presents the findings regarding feedback for a number of meta-analytic studies. Based on the findings reported in the table, one can conclude that feedback should be an integral part of any teacher's arsenal of strategies. Within The Classroom Strategies Series, we highlight the research on feedback in the book Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading (Marzano, in press). Here we include the research on feedback because it has a symbiotic relationship with goals. Without effective goals, feedback is impossible. Without feedback, goals are rendered quite sterile.

Table 1.3 Research Results for Feedback

      What can a teacher take away from the research? Certainly one generalization is that setting clear and specific goals for learning that are at just the right level of difficulty can greatly enhance student achievement.

Translating Research Into Classroom Practice

      In subsequent chapters, we will translate the research presented in this chapter into a number of recommendations for designing learning goals and the tasks that determine accomplishment of those goals. As mentioned in the introduction, as you progress through the remaining chapters, you will encounter exercises that ask you to examine the content presented. Some of these exercises ask you to answer specific questions. Answer these questions in the space provided, and check your answers with those reported in the back of the book. Other exercises are more open-ended and ask you to generate