Okay, I don’t really hateinstructional objectives, but I can’t help wondering if we are overusing them,perhaps for the wrong purposes. Ever since Bob Mager popularized instructionalobjectives more than 40 years ago in his classic book, PreparingInstructional Objectives, they have become part of the Holy Grail forinstructional designers and the training industry.
Be they enabling or terminal; cognitive, affective, or psychomotor;normative or summative; or behavioral, instructional, or performanceobjectives, no course is worthy without a host of statements that explain,sometimes in excruciating detail, what the student will be able to do after theinstruction is completed. But are instructional objectives as valuable as wethink they are?
The ABC’s (and D’s) of objectives: Do they really matter?
We’ve all had driven into us the mantra that objectives should havefour parts: Audience, Behavior, Conditions, and Degree (so-called “A-B-C-Dobjectives”). Objectives should clearly define the audience (the “A”), describewhat the audience will be able to do (the “B”), detail the environment underwhich the behavior will be demonstrated (the “C”), and state how well thebehavior should be demonstrated (“the D”). That’s all well and good, but howmuch relevance does this have for the student/performer in the real world?
For instructional designers, objectives help a lot. They drive testingand evaluation strategies, they are a checklist of sorts for all the learningactivities in the course, and they help us better meet learner needs. Designerscan use objectives to better understand how well a course (classroom or online)is performing. Is the audience learning? Do the learning activities work? Arewe covering the content adequately?
But do objectives truly help the learners? Even if they do, are theyenough? We’ve all been there; sitting in class while the instructor reads (orwe view online) any number of statements, sometimes dozens of them, for eachlesson or module, that often begin, “at the conclusion of this course, thestudent will be able to…” Each objective focuses on a specific skill orknowledge taught in the course, but may be too much in the weeds to answer students’bigger questions like, “Why am I taking this course?” “What’s in it for me?”and “How will this help me down the road?”
One four-hour eLearning course I know had eight lessons with an averageof six instructional objectives per lesson. That’s 48 objectives. But when Iasked a focus group of students what the valueof the course was for them, I got wildly divergent answers and more blankstares than I had hoped.
The value of an advance organizer
It is this sense of value or benefit that seems to be missing frominstructional objectives. We advise students well about what they will be doingin class and right afterward, but less well about how the course will help themdown the road. This hurts motivation, especially when it comes to applying whatthey have learned in the real world of work. It also clouds the linkage betweencourses and organizational goals. Objectives tell you what the course will do,but they don’t tell you how you or the organization will benefit.
That’s why, at the very least, I want to amend the four-part, A-B-C-Dobjective paradigm with a fifth part: expectations.A-B-C-D-E objectives would require a statement of what the audiencewill gain from the course and how it will impact their work, competency, and/orcareer, as well has how it supports the mission and strategies of the organization.With a statement of expectations, students, and the organization will be ableto relate what they do in an instructional setting with more meaningful macrosuccess criteria.
Even better would be statements of expectations that can stand alonefrom the instructional objectives so that we can discuss and update themwithout necessarily having to go into the minutia of specific training timeframes,tactics, measures, or outcomes. We would generally introduce expectations upfront (at the beginning of a course or sometimes at the lesson level), and theybecome a great advance organizer for what is to come. My eight-lesson, 48-objectiveonline course would have far fewer, but more powerful, expectations statementsthat we could include in course descriptions and syllabi.
A question of expectations
Here’s a quick checklist of ten “expectations type” questions yourlearners will be asking (you can probably think of more):
- Why am I here?
- What will I learn?
- Why is this important to me?
- How will this benefit my job performance and my career?
- How will I use what I learn?
- How will my job change because of what I’ve learned?
- Why is this important to my organization?
- What do I need to be ready?
- Will my boss support this training?
- What am I supposed to do when I return from training?
So, by all means, keep instructional objectives, but don’t stop there. Addstatements of expectations to truly broadcast the value and worthiness of yourtraining efforts.
Heresy!
Still not sure? Ask yourself this: when was the last time a C-levelexecutive in your organization asked anything about what the instructionalobjectives are for your training programs? Probably never. But they always ask(or should always ask) what the benefits of those programs are – to the businessand to the employees. Can you clearly, succinctly, and strategically answerthis question?
De-emphasizing instructional objectives may be heresy to some, but tolearners, a better balance with expectations and value statements may bewelcome indeed.
