The pros
- By defining learning objectives, you establish a clear target for you as a designer or instructor to aim for, expressed in terms of specific and measurable behaviours.
- These learning objectives can then be used as the basis for designing appropriate assessments.
- By analysing the objectives by type (knowledge, skills and attitudes in all their various guises), it is possible to formulate instructional strategies for each element of the intervention that are based on accepted good practice.
- The objectives provide learners with a clear statement of what they are expected to achieve and what they can expect of the instructor or instructional materials.
In the highly 'rational' world of instructional systems design, this sounds like a pretty convincing set of arguments. But is the world really like this?
The cons
- Learning objectives make sense when the learning intervention is driven from the top-down, i.e. at the behest of management. When participation in an intervention is determined by employees themselves, then their goals should surely over-ride any objectives set by the designer/instructor - at very least they should be negotiated.
- Learning objectives work on the basis that specific outcomes can be consistently achieved for all learners, or at least most of them. This may well be reasonable with some types of learning, if only superficially. The reality is that the connections that learners manage to achieve in their brains as a result of a learning experience are likely to be very different from person to person and in some cases highly unpredictable, particularly when the objectives are more sophisticated than the rote acquisition of knowledge or the performance of routine, rule-based tasks.
- Learners who are presented with highly formalised objectives at the commencement of a 'lesson' are likely to end up both bored and baffled. The priority at the commencement of any intervention is engaging the learner, not sending them to sleep.
So where does that leave things? I'm still working on it.
On balance, based on a heady mix of experience and intuition I come down in the 'hate' camp. The cons described above are so much more powerful than the pros; especially the one that makes the 'sheep dip' point. So many clients I have worked with have an oversimplified view of the nature of learning and the complex things that go on in our brains when we truly learn something new. For a number of years I have worked with a brilliant company called Celemi (www.celemi.com). They design 'business simulations' (not online but using Workmats) and one of the key objectives in their simulations is for each learner to have their own unique 'Aha' moment. Of course telling the HR Director that you don't really know what each individual will learn from the simulation can be a problem in our left brained world, but if they are curious enough and actually 'play' a sim they are pretty much hooked! Maybe we need a more right brained way to describe the possible range of outcomes from a learning intervention? To be continued...but now it's quite late and it's been a long day... ;-)
ReplyDeleteYou will learn: the learning objectives belong in the catalogue, not the course.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's easier if we talk about learning 'in real life': my learning (for example a search on the web) is driven my my learning objectives, which in turn are a result of some challenge or other. If I'm not already clear on the learning objectives, then something has probably already gone horribly wrong (I think this is the top-down point you make). At the very least someone should know why the objectives are before they enlist in the learning.
I can't imagine a movie opening with the title 'in this film you will learn that good eventually triumphs over evil, though this may require car chases and romantic interludes' (though I admit this might have been a good idea on occasion). Why not? Because we presume that some special supernormal activity called 'learning' is happening in this peculiar class of instructive experiences? One of the best learning events I attended recently began with the facilitator saying 'if you learn one thing from this event it will have been a success' - I did, it was, and he didn't say in advance what the thing was.
Learning objectives are defensible on the grounds of repetition and schema I suppose - that if someone isn't remotely interested in something, then repeating it might leave a trace. And there is research to suggest that organizing information strongly influences remembering (in which case the student not the instructor should be doing the organizing).
You have learned: the learning objectives belong in the catalogue, not the course.
I like that in the catalogue not the course.
DeleteI find that as I grow as a designer I am a lot less pedantic about objectives.
Not sure if this is because I am comfortable without, or I just quickly do them in my head and move on.
Rob
I opt for expressive outcomes as opposed to behavioral outcomes.
ReplyDeleteNick - I like the movie analogy - must work that into my argument to focus less on learning objectives and more on the learning.
ReplyDeleteAs I love French cinema any attempt to explain what is going to happen would be completely futile!
Went to see Gondry’s take of Vian’s L’Écume des jours (Mood Indigo), thinking about this line. Analysis can be as destructive as Jean-Sol Partre’s Nothingness.
DeleteI think that every activity including learning need some kind of goal/objective. It helps not only to concentrate on most important things during learning but is also a motivator (if you see the finish line you run faster:)
ReplyDeleteThe structure of objectives is one of those dogmas that has scarred the e-learning industry. Many within the industry recognize it and almost all of our learners see it, so why does it persist?
ReplyDeleteWe have come to avoid assuming that the structural objective set will be directly passed to a form that will be viewed by the learner. Most learners couldn't care less about a clinically structured outcome that doesn't resonate with the audience. Most new (and some seasoned) ISD will get spun up over this structure and insist that "When you've finished the course, you will be able to:" - bullet, bullet, bullet is the best way to clearly represent expectations to the learner. I've seen folks argue over verb usage that has absolutely no relevance to the task at hand. We tend to spend a lot of time word smithing objectives for a target format that, to the learner, means almost nothing.
I agree with the "in the catalog" reference above. But we might also want to consider two other learning / performance objective views:
1. The architects view. This representation clearly articulates the science and measurement qualities. This is where you'd see the value proposition or three part objective in a clinical form. By keeping this view separate but connected to the resonant view and catalog view, the designer / architect can form valid connections between the goals and the design without polluting the learner's stream with the same clinical artifact. Avoid this. What's real in the formative / generative states of a project is almost never real to the participant that ends up consuming the product for a useful purpose.
2. The catalog view. I'd be hesitant still to transfer the scaffolding view into the catalog. The catalog view should be clear and concise, focusing on concept acquisition and relevance to task or skill. What am I going to know how to do when I'm finished? What skill or readiness level is this going to help me attain?
3. The resonant view. Within the course, this is where expectation setting is most critical. Represent these in a way that connects the learner with the experience. Make the objectives useful, contextual and relevant. Tell a story if you must. Relate them to some experience the learner might already have. Present them as a question. There are many strategies that can be used to make objectives resonate.
Don't think of learning objectives in one single flavor. Divide into useful forms and connect them. We don't paint dimensions and architectural planning annotations onto our buildings. Nor should we do the same with learning experiences.
One more thing... By abstracting our architecture objectives from the resonant view, we can also be more REAL about what we can truly accomplish with our design. Too often we jump directly to an objective that may not be measurable or attainable (not totally SMART) within the digital environment. The digital environment is great for lots of types of practice and assessment, but we need to be REAL about what we can actually do within this environment. Abstracting to a related, yet (within the environment) unobtainable, goal and plopping this in a clinical form in front of the learner doesn't help anyone.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting post. I've never considered the potential cons associated with limiting a lesson plan using learning objectives. Your argument has made me think a bit about how beneficial lesson plans are, but I must say that a recent experience has made me confident that lesson plans are more helpful than not.
ReplyDeleteI am a senior biology student currently and an undergraduate TA in an introductory blended writing course. The class meets once a week and does the bulk of the work online via discussion boards, online classrooms, and wikis. Perhaps my comment is slightly irrelevant considering I am teaching a blended class, as opposed to a completely online class. But I still believe that teachers and students alike benefit when there are specific learning objectives in every class.
I recently conducted a complete f2f lesson in which my primary goal was to prepare the students for their next big essay. At first, I thought about a couple of concepts that I might want to include in the lesson, but as I continued planning, I constantly referred to the primary goal of helping the students prepare for their assignment. Based on the goal, I came up with a number of learning objectives that approached the goal from different angles in order to give the students a complete understanding of the prompt and a basis from which they can begin writing.
If I understand your first point correctly, then you agree that it makes sense to use learning objectives in cases like mine. However, I believe that even in bottom-up learning intervention, a responsible designer/instructor would build his own learning objectives by considering what he thinks the employees or students would want. But once again, I am not involved in this sort of environment; in my class, the students will gather the skills that their instructors help them master.
While I do understand your second point, my experience tells me otherwise. Perhaps this concept depends on the subject matter, but in my class, I was able to make sure that the learning objectives were achieved by most students because I asked them questions. I tried to engage students that don't usually participate to make sure they understood the concepts I presented. Moreover, I presented the same topics from different angles specifically to account for the individual differences within the class.
Your third point is simplistic, but it really makes sense. I know I've experienced it in so many classes. However, I've had classes in which there were incredibly dull learning objectives, but the professors knew how to present the material in ways that kept me engaged and even interested. I think this is determined more by the instructor than the material presented.
Thanks for this post; it's made me think quite a bit.
The debate certainly continues doesn't it? Perhaps those for the nays have unfortunately had poor experiences of learning objectives. I know I've seen what people purport to be learning objectives which are either long lists of key learning points or very woolly, vaguely written aims.
ReplyDeleteI still come down firmly in the 'aye' camp but not so blinkerd as to not to admit something needs to change to help spark immediate engagement. I did start writing a little more about what my thoughts would be along these lines but the reply turned out rather long. Therefore, your post and the responses here have fuelled a post of my own exploring what a learning objective is before we can condemn them : http://www.purplelearning.co.uk/instructional-design/the-problem-with-learning-objectives.
Writing learning objectives is something that I have had pounded into my brain ever since my first instructional design class in the military. I work for a civilian company now and when developing curriculum with organizations as a contractor, learning objectives are always the first hiccup in the process. While I do feel that learning objectives are helpful, I run into issues where people are inflexible and think that they are the be all end all of the process. I diasagree with that based upon 10 years of working with different organizations. I feel that it is more important that some kind of beneficial "change" occured in the students mind when they leave the classroom. I do not know if there will ever be a time when learning objectives are not used but I do hope that eventually a little common sense regarding how they are used will prevail.
ReplyDeleteThe way the process works for me during most projects is that the project manager, instructional designer, and the subject matter experts sit in a room and hash out the objectives first. The last few projects I have worked on were revisions of old courses. As you can imagine, when there is new content everyone gets panicky about writing new objectives immediately. The problem I encounter is that the subject matter experts are not even sure what they are going to include in the curriculum. I spend alot of hours writing objectives with them only to find out that they do not match the intent of the curriculum. So we might write a performance based objective and then in the middle of the process someone decides that it is not necessary to do the hands on portion. So there went wasted hours and I am stuck with more hours of recreating.
The other issue is, as Steve mentioned, that there is usually someone in the group who wants to argue about the action verb. While I like collaboration, most people have no idea about action verbs. So the group goes round and round about whether the verb should be "describe" or "identify". In the end we all know that it really does not matter.
I can tell you that there is no way I am going to convince anyone that learning objectives are not necessary. In fact, I feel that they do have their place. For my subject matter experts, it guides them when they describe the module to the class. On the other hand, couldn't that be done with an introduction? It also determines the level and order of training. But can't the same thing be done with an outline? Do the students really need to even see the objectives? If we do not use objectives what do we measure against? All these questions run through my mind. Especially after reading your posts.
What is my solution? Recently, I have found that the best way to deal with these issues is to take charge of my part of the process as the ISD. It is really about changing a paradigm that has been around for years. Since most people have no idea what objectives are, it is easy for me to tell them that we should develop our outlines BEFORE our objectives. Along with that I tell them that they can better concentrate on the material they want included while I work on the objectives. We discuss the objectives after they get their thoughts together. They accept that because it takes a burden off of them. I have never been questioned on this method, the end result is the same, and the process is more efficient.
Came here by chance. Was working on Learning Objects. Google sent me to this post within the first page. As I also have a love/hate relationship with learning objectives, I kept it in my “to read” tabs. Also, I rarely read comments, having had too many discouraging experiences in the past few years. Not only am I relieved by the thoughtfulness of these comments but, more profoundly, I’m glad I’m not alone in these lines of thinking. As it so happens, I agree with every comment here, as they complement one another.
ReplyDeleteWasn’t trained as an instructional designer. My instructional training is mostly informal, as I was raised by a Piaget-trained pedagogue and followed a subject-based academic route (winding through diverse disciplinary paths). I’ve participated in many instructional activities, but the jargon and habits aren’t ingrained in me. Learning objectives don’t come naturally to me and they always felt artificial. Like a bureaucratic requirement. I’m ok with fulfilling requirements and I understand their value, at some levels in the organizational structure. To me, learning objectives can represent more of an arbitrary constraint than a welcomed opportunity.
It’s fun when learners have their own objectives in mind, especially if they’re diverse. More accurately, I like to negotiate objectives with learners. I do have my own intentions, and I follow those set by context (e.g., from the catalogue). Diverse goals emerge when projects are allowed to flourish in appropriate soil. Fertile ground for learning vs. solid mould to shape cement.
Some learners need a lot of structure. Clear objectives can be reassuring. As I quickly realized in reading up on Learning Objects, Hodgins’s LEGO analogy can be dangerous. It specifically calls out the diversity of uses. The same material (LEGO blocks or Learning Objects) can lead to very different outcomes. As we all know, learners can get very different things out of the same learning situation. Imposing finality in a top-down fashion is too restrictive. Letting everything grow without staking can be too confusing. Allowing diverse learning approaches to coexist, some measure of fluidity can be introduced in an otherwise solid structure.
I also take the catalogue point to heart. I’m one of those teachers who take great care to make sure the course fits the official description, whether it’s open to interpretation or rigidly specific. I owe that to learners who go through that specific learning experience because of the catalogue entry. As constraints go, it’s nowhere as troublesome as the emphasis on grades, in my experience.
Few learners pay much attention to catalogue entries, as far as I can tell. At least, it doesn’t sound like they refer to the catalogue to assess their learning experience at the end of a course. Early interactions between learners and teachers matter more. Laying down the terms of the contracts. Learners may be quite disappointed if those terms aren’t respected. Educational catalogues aren’t more efficient than other catalogues.
What’s funny is that I might get a position as an education specialist. That position has a lot to do with an online catalogue which might soon get an overhaul. I’d like to address learning objectives, if I get the job. Along with some other pieces of metadata, they could help me rebuild that catalogue. They’re far from an end in themselves and may not work in all or even most cases.
I like the idea of writing out learning objectives after some other work has been done. Projects at Amazon allegedly start with drafts of press releases. Neat idea. My guess is that those press releases are revised throughout the project development process and the final ones differ significantly from early drafts. Like writing outlines, goals need not prevent innovation or hinder flexibility.
It’s been almost two years since this post was submitted, so it feels a bit strange to be late to the party. I’ll integrate other comments in a blogpost of my own.
Thanks, Clive et al. for this thought nourishment.