According to the directives of the authorities, the teaching of chemistry in the 5th grade follows logic by objectives in the Malagasy educational system. Consisting of lectures, application exercises and evaluations similar to these exercises, the use of this approach in two classrooms at the Lycée Toamasina II highlighted that the level of proficiency of the pupils decreases as the taxonomic level of the objectives increases. On the one hand, goal-oriented pedagogy aims at the assimilation of notions by the conditioning of students, requiring considerable academic time and not allowing accompaniment and remediation. On the ot
her hand, it does not take into account the learning process of students, limited to a binary evaluation of the attainment of objectives. Moreover, the use of acquired knowledge is limited to specific school contexts, making it difficult to reinvest them.
Goal-Oriented Pedagogy Pedagogic Objectives Learning Process Achievement Process1. Introduction
According to a notice from the Ministry of National Education [1] , the pedagogical method applicable to Madagascar since the beginning of 2015-2016 is the goal-oriented pedagogy. It involves installing a method that helps students learn lessons, and thus pass exams. In order to improve the quality of education in Madagascar, the Ministry of Education aims to encourage the participation of students during the learning process during class by using investigation process, by questioning students about the lesson, and by encouraging them to correct the exercises on the chalkboard. The aim is not to complete the curriculum by subject, but to facilitate teaching, while at the same time encouraging students to participate more creatively. It always consists in setting a goal before anything else. With the goal-oriented pedagogy, the teacher should always show to the students the objective to achieve their studies.
This approach, introduced in the Malagasy education system in the 1990s [2] , involves more the teacher than the student. During class, the student is only an observer; the teacher gives him all he needs to know through an explicit school program [3] . So, the development of the concept of objectives and its operational applications was closely associated with the idea of systematic planning of training activities, using a systematic approach including needs analysis, determination of learning objectives, choice of teaching methods, and the establishment of a system of assessment of learning in order to verify the achievement of objectives. In this approach, the teacher has three objectives, namely the knowledge, the know-how and the expertise of the apprentice. During the school year, the program is distributed in time; during such a month the pupil must learn such a lesson; in the notation, only the exact answer to a question will have a note and a part of the exact answer is not considered.
According to the ministerial directive [1] , we used goal-oriented pedagogy in chemistry teaching in two 5th grade’s classes at the Lycée Toamasina II in order to determine the impact of this pedagogical approach on the proficiency level of students. The implementation of this teaching method consists in dividing the knowledge to be transmitted into as many objectives to reach, and allows checking if a specific objective is reached by the students; to do this, we decided to give the lesson in a masterful way, the exercises were done at home and corrected in class, and the assessments are similar to those exercises; we tried to determine whether students reached the specific objectives corresponding to the assessed concepts [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] . The objective of our study is to demonstrate that, in opposite to what is intended, the implementation of goal-oriented pedagogy in the teaching of chemistry does not lead the student to success, both in the acquisition of knowledge, intention of the designers of this method, and in the completion of the schooling, reflecting the will of the ministerial officials.
2. Research Methodology
The study we conducted was carried out during the two first quarters of the school year 2016-2017 with 49 students of the 5th grade 6 and 49 students of the 5th grade 9 of the Lycée Toamasina II. We used as a framework the physical science curriculum of the 5th grade defined by the Ministry of National Education and we aimed at the specific objectives of the part on the matter and its chemical transformations [9] . During the classroom sessions, we observed the behavior of the students induced by the implementation of our teaching. The evaluations enabled us to take evaluate the achievement of the specific objectives [4] .
2.1. Implementation of the Teaching
During the teaching of the content of the program, we opted for the traditional method which consists in giving the lesson to be copied by the students with the corresponding explanations and answering their questions [5] . At the end of each lesson, the teacher gives the application exercises to do at home, and correct in class for the next session; the exercises are given with increasing difficulty as defined by the Bloom taxonomy [10] , and associated with specific objectives in the program [6] . At the end of the correction of a series of exercises, the teacher foresees a classical assessment based on the objectives and similar to the exercises of application.
The assessment is done individually, and carried out over a time defined by the teacher. The evaluation topics were developed to include the concepts which were taught in order to determine whether each of the specific objectives had been achieved; the questions were written with respect to the different taxonomic levels. For each specific objective, a number of exact expected responses have been defined to validate the achievement of this objective; at the end of the correction of the copies, a specific objective is validated or not validated, according to these responses [4] . During the progression, two assessments were carried out: one after completing part of the program and the other at the end of the program. The objectives already evaluated in the first evaluation were taken up in the second assessment, in addition to the specific objectives relating to the addressed concepts between the two assessments.
We would like to point out that as a result of many unforeseen events which occurred throughout the school year (pause during the Francophonie summit, the cyclone, school days, etc.), we were unable to complete the program. Knowing that institution in which we operate, as well as almost all the public schools in Madagascar, does not have adequate laboratory and materials for carrying out practical work, although some parts of the program must be addressed experimental way. However, this situation does not affect the relevance of our study because the achievement of the objectives was judged in relation to the contents which could be tackled.
2.2. Progression of the Teaching
Table 1 shows the progress of teaching session after session and the nature of the implemented activities, including the specific objectives and content of the program [9] .
2.3. Association of Specific Objectives Assessed at a Taxonomic Level
Establishing a match between the specific objectives with the different taxo-
Progress in teaching chemistry during the school year 2016-2017
ReferencesRabary, P. (2015) Arrêté n°10869/2015/MEN/SG/SLDC portant organisation transitoire de la méthode pédagogique. [Ministerial Order No. 10869/2015/MEN/ SG/SLDC on the Transitional Organization of the Teaching Method]. Ministère de l’Education Nationale, Antananarivo.Loi n°94-033 du 13 mars 1995 portant Orientation Générale du Système d’Education et de Formation à Madagascar. [Law No. 94-033 on March 13th, 1995 on the General Orientation of the Educational and Training System in Madagascar].De Landsherre, G. and de Landsherre, V. (1976) Définir les objectifs de l’éducation. [Defining Objectives of Education]. P.U.F., Paris.Bloom, B.S., Hastings, J.T. and Madaus, G.F. (1971) Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. Mc Graw-Hill, New-York.Gagné, R.M. and Briggs, L.J. (1974) Principles of Instructional Design. Holt, Rinelhart & Winston, New-York.Mager, R.F. (1975) Preparing Objectives for Instruction. Fearon, Belmont.Hameline, D. (1979) Les objectifs pédagogiques en formation initiale et continue. [Pedagogical Objectives in Initial and Continuing Education]. Editions Sans Frontière, Paris.De Landsherre, G. (1984) Empirical Research in Education. B.I.E.-U.N.E.S.C.O., Paris.Fanony, F. (1996) Arrêté n°1617/96-MEN du 02-04-96 fixant les programmes scolaires des classes de onzième, sixième et seconde. [Ministerial Order no. 1617/ 96-MEN on April 2nd, 1996 Fixing the Curricula of the 1st Grade of the Primary School, 1st Grade and 5th Grade of the Secondary School]. Ministère de l’Education Nationale, Antananarivo.Bloom, B.S., et al. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. McKay, New-York.