You are here: Home / When you take a course, how often do you read learning objectives?
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 112 other subscribers
Advance E-Learning through a community that provides leadership, best practices and resources in a collaborative environment
I read objectives when I take a course – but, since I design courses, taking a course is for me, a bus driver’s holiday. I’m not the typical learner and I know it. I look at everything in the course and I evaluate it – how would I do this?
This question about objectives is a great question. I think we need to rethink how we present them because most people click right past them. Then they are surprised when the course doesn’t deliver to their expectations. Especially when they are written in impeccable Bob Mager form (performance, conditions, criterion), they can be pretty hard for the learner to grok. I once asked my mentor, Pat Smith (a protege of Bob Gagne), how to write objectives for small children or people who are developmentally disabled. The answer is pretty obvious: you make it as simple and comprehensible as possible. Well, why should any learner be treated differently?
One really good reason for doing objectives is to force us, as course designers, to be clear and honest. Mager-style objectives force us to truly align the objectives to the assessment. But it’s like the fine print in a contract – it’s binding but not very accessible in terms of communicating in clear language.
What are your thoughts?
Debby Kalk
I have a different reaction to objectives – I don’t read them most of the time. I find them terribly boring. After I start training I may go back and check the objectives, especially if I can’t tell what I am supposed to get out of the lesson.
I think writing objectives is an essential part of the instructional design process and it helps me clarify what the learner is supposed to know or be able to do at the end of a lesson. For me, objectives serve as a framework throughout a project. They help me begin with the end in mind (so I know where we are going with the training).
I really like to take what I need from objectives and restate them in friendlier terms for learners. At MicroAssist we sometimes state them in terms of questions to create curiosity.
I read in “Blink” that an audience makes up its mind about a presentation by the end of the second slide. I typically think of face-to-face presentations as starting with the title on slide 1 and the objectives on slide 2. It seems like a pretty boring way to start.
I contrast that typical introduction with the way television shows begin. They generally start with an event to pique your curiosity. After they get you hooked they show the credits. I also think about James Bond movies. I love those first few minutes. Typical training isn’t nearly so captivating.
On a current project we are starting lessons with case studies. The cases demonstrate how the learners could encounter a situation they may not be able to handle. The case is really a preview of what is covered in the lesson. We have a link to the objectives. Learners have the choice to view or skip the objectives. I’ll be curious to see how people react to this approach.
It would be great to hear what other people think.
Linda Warren
Learning Solutions Magazine has a nice article on learning objectives and how various levels of learning in the cognitive domain can be achieved in E-Learning. One of the things I learned when reading this article is that there is a new version of Bloom’s taxonomy. I guess I’m dating myself when I say the highest level of learning was “evaluation” when I originally studied this subject. Now the highest level is “creating.”
Learning Solutions Magazine article:
http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/710/nuts-and-bolts-do-your-learning-objectives-match-strategies-and-outcomes
Comparison of new and old levels in Bloom’s taxonomy:
http://www.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm