Over the years I've developed many courses (both knowledge and performance learning based). I've written (Mager's) instructional objectives for these courses to measure learning outcomes for job performance changes.

I've attended courses (and seen them advertised)that use "learning objectives" (more generalised statements of completion).

These courses provide a laundry list of learning objectives (the learning objective sounded something like ..."At the end of this lesson the learner will understand (or some other verb)..." There are typically a number of these statements for each lesson.

Many of these courses involved job skill change where it would have been more appropriate to use instructional objectives instead, to more accurately measure learning.

So my question is...when should learning objectives be used in learning and what types of courses/content are they appropriate for?

I'm familiar with the term instructional objectives but thought learner objectives were another term for the same process, just with language emphasis on the learner.

Instructional Objectives
1. The specific performance required to demonstrate successful accomplishement
(e.g., to write, to name, to compare and constrast, to debate, to decide, etc.)

2. The learning outcome or product by which successful accomplishment of the objective can be determined
(e.g., a statement, an essay, a poster, a journal entry, etc.)

3. The conditions under which the behavior is to be performed
(e.g., during a cooperative activity, after reading the story_______ )

4. The criterion or standard used to determine successful performance or achievement of the instructional objective
(e.g., correct to the nearest mile, four out of five correct, list three examples, state two differences, etc.)

A little research turned up this:
Robert Mager's 'Learner objectives'
Mager's central concept is that a learning goal should be broken into a subset of smaller tasks or learning objectives. By his definition, a behavioral objective should have three components:

1. Behavior. The behavior should be specific and observable.

2. Condition. The conditions under which the behavior is to be completed should be stated, including what tools or assistance is to be provided.

3. Standard. The level of performance that is desirable should be stated, including an acceptable range of answers that are allowable as correct.

Seems to me that my initial impression is correct, unless I'm missing a subtlety.

Thanks for your response. When I used "Learning Objective" I was using the term that these courses use. I know that terminology is sometimes a challenge in this industry as different terms can mean different things to different people. So I apologise if I've not been clear enough. It was very challenging trying to define this in my initial question.

I've developed a lot of workplace training over the years and use Mager's instructional objectives so I'm very familiar with the development of these. What I've found is that some of the courses I've taken that use the terminology "learning objectives" don't write them using Mager's elements. In other words, there is usually no criterion or conditions and the performance verb is usually pretty vague.

These "learning objectives" tend to be less measurable. And rather than having one instructional objective per objective (if using Mager's model), these courses can have 5+ vague statement per lesson.

I see these types of learning statements in a lot of training programs so there is obviously a place for them. I've just never used them so I was curious about when these types of learning statements are appropriate to use in training?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PaulaL,

Whatever works best for you?

I hate to sound flip, but if your evaluations are demonstrating that learning is taking place, and people are enjoying themselves, why fix what ain't broke?

Fortunately or unfortunately, this is an industry where fads roll through with new language for old condepts or old language for new concepts. Words, terms and phrases are not just interchangable for theories in our field, but education in general. What with the difference between primary, secondary and adult theories of learning and then professional training we have a huge vocabulary and always seem to be saying the same thing.

There's probably a book in it for you if you grab onto a concept and let it roll out, though. Make some money and do the lecture circuit!

Paula, let me fully agree with JM's statements.

As for your concern over the characteristics of these learning objectives (and where I come from, Learning Objectives and Instructional Objectives are interchangeable terms) the lack of a condition or standard element to the statement simply means that they are inferred. In other words, the students will demonstrate (as fully as the verb states they must) the skill or mastery of a subject without help or hinderance, and to a 100% accuracy. This doesn't mean they need to score a 100% on the test (naturally - but some folks are confused by this) but that's what they are expected to learn.

I completely agree with you that verbs such as:

know
understand
appreciate

and the like, are extremely challenging to observe since the very nature of the verb is unobservable, or at least less so than:

state
describe
explain
assemble
discuss
maintain
troubleshoot

and the like. But I still see these less concrete terms used in LOs/IOs.

JM quoted chapter and verse from Mager, but I like to simplify learning objectives (instructional objectives) by saying that they accomplish two things:

They tell the student what he or she must learn.

They tell the instructor what he or she must teach.

With that in mind, I recommend that you stick with concrete verbs. With regard to the condition and standard portions, if there's no need for a condition (no book or manual will be provided for instance) and no need for a standard (you won't be timing them or there's not an acceptable level of defects - as in welding) then leave them out. A simple behavior serves as a nice, simple, and direct LO/IO and doesn't clutter the page with unnecessary verbage about conditions and standards that are understood even when not presented.

JM - Nice post!

Regards,

Del Laughery
President, Instructional Dynamics