Who needs learning objectives?
- This article looks at the case against creating learning objectives
- It explores how learners are often discouraged by box-ticking and how trainers need to implement better systems at helping learners retain information
- Charles Jennings cites examples of how effective learning can be achieved without the use of learning objectives
How many times have you embarked on some formal learning, whether in a classroom or through an elearning or blended course, and the first thing you’re presented with is a list of rather bland learning objectives? This begs the question, are lists for losers? Charles Jennings considers the evidence.
- At the end of this course you will be able to tie your shoelaces in a double bow
- At the end of this course you will be able to use a blender to make a tasty fish milkshake
- At the end of this course you will be able to make gold out of base metal
- and so on...
Apart from being some of the most de-motivating writing any of us have ever read, lists of learning objectives are the worst possible way to create an environment for learning. In fact, they are often the first barrier to real learning. Why so?
Two basic problems
I see two basic underlying problems with learning objectives. Firstly, many training and development specialists continue to apply a model of learning objectives that was developed more than half a century ago in a context that they don’t really understand. It’s a model that was ‘of its time’ and, although some of the principles still apply, certainly isn’t as relevant in the 21st century as it was in the mid-1900s, even accepting the view that formal learning still has a place in developing people.
Secondly, many training and development specialists are learning obsessed rather than performance obsessed. Their focus is on delivering content and assessing its retention by learners – on ensuring learners ‘learn’ rather than enabling people to ‘do’. Giving fish rather than fishing rods.
"There’s a strong argument that proof of achievement of learning objectives as commonly assessed at the end of the learning event doesn’t even measure learning."Subsequently their learning objectives tend to be built around a set of post-course assessments. Even then, the way in which the ‘learning’ is assessed is often so poor that it only measures short-term memory retention rather than real learning and behaviour change.
A nod to Bloom
Back in 1956 when Benjamin Bloom and his committee members developed a taxonomy of learning objectives they were working in a very different world than we live in today. Reductionism and codification were the dominant mindsets. The standard approach to teaching at the time (and it was ‘teaching’ rather than ‘learning’) was to design courses and programmes so that students should take the same time to reach a specified level of mastery.
It was a crude approach where the hares won and the tortoises lost. Bloom was kicking against this with his taxonomy. The three learning domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy (cognitive, affective and psychomotor) were, in some way, an attempt to overlay some of the complexity of the learning process on what was seen at the time as a rather deterministic and mechanistic endeavour. Bloom was, underneath it all, a progressive. A former student once described him as "embracing the idea that education as a process was an effort to realize human potential, indeed, even more, it was an effort designed to make potential possible. Education was an exercise in optimism." (Elliot W. Eisner in the UNSECO Quarterly Review of Comparative Education 2000).
Bloom himself saw beyond learning objectives as simply a means to an end. He was convinced that environment and experience were very powerful factors influencing human performance. It’s worth noting that his last book published just six years before he died in 1999 was ‘The Home Environment and Social Learning’. He certainly wasn’t hung up on learning objectives. Bloom’s view of learning was the need to focus on target attainment rather than the ‘race to the finish post’ as was common in the 1950s. It was, in reality, a belief of learning as an enabler. At the time Bloom was addressing an important issue through his learning objectives, today that battle has been won.
Learning objectives and improved performance
So why, 50 years on, do we still have this slavish adherence to presenting learning objectives at the outset of courses in some mechanistic manner, and often skewed to the cognitive domain? It’s often ignorance, and sometimes simply a desire to make the life of the trainer easier, I’m afraid. And sometimes it’s just marketing. Learning objectives are really only useful for the people designing the learning. If used well they can form a helpful framework for instructional designers. However, they should be kept well away from learners or course recipients. If a course is well-designed and targeted to meet a defined performance gap, a list of learning objectives serves absolutely no purpose other than to dull the enthusiasm of those embarking on a course of study.
What any learner, and their manager, wants to know is whether on-the-job performance has been improved through some formal learning intervention. In other words, whether the experiences that the employee had during formal training has resulted in changed behaviour and performance in the workplace. Achievement of learning objectives is not evidence of this. The ability to pass a test or demonstrate a skill in a classroom setting is not the same as being able to do so in workplace conditions. I suppose the notable exception is where the classroom conditions mirror exactly, or almost exactly, the workplace – such as training pilots in a flight simulator. Still, I don’t imagine any one of us would take kindly to flying in a plane with a pilot who has only proved his or her performance in a simulator and hasn’t a modicum of experience in the air, unless there isn’t an alternative.
In fact there’s a strong argument that proof of achievement of learning objectives as commonly assessed – at the end of the learning event – doesn’t even measure learning. Sometimes the time lag between end-of-course testing and attempting to put the learning into action is such that the ‘learning’ is lost from short-term memory. At other times the work environment is less ‘controlled’ than the learning environment and the added variables mean performance improvement simply doesn’t occur. Most of us have seen situations where people return bright-eyed and bushy-tailed from a training course with plans to do things differently – time management, project management and people management training are good cases-in-point - only to revert to the old ways as soon as the day-to-day pressures of the working environment kick back in.
Measuring performance
If you are going to assess the impact of a course on individual participants’ performance in the workplace you need to forget about learning objectives for doing the job. Remember, learning objectives may be useful to help you create a logical design, but that’s all they’re useful for. When you get to measuring transfer of learning to the workplace you need to engage with the people who are in a position to observe behaviour and performance and those who are in a position to measure outputs. This usually means the manager and the team member who is responsible for maintaining performance metrics for the business or team – the balanced scorecard metrics or similar.
This approach requires training and development managers and instructional designers to engage with business managers and agree on strategies for measuring the impact of the learning before the learning design phase even starts. A good way to do this is to roll it into early engagement with business managers in defining the performance problem to be solved, whose performance needs improving and whether training is likely to help solve the problem (which is usually ‘no’, but sometimes ‘yes’).
In most cases performance change can’t be measured immediately following the training if it is to be meaningful. Take the case of transactional work - data entry or call centre operatives for instance – where the proof that training has led to improved performance requires data taken over a period of time, and not just on the first day or two back in the workplace. All this requires more thought and effort than writing a few overarching learning objectives (even if in well-formed behavioural format) and then developing assessments to ‘test’ whether they’ve been achieved or not. And it requires different skills of the training and development team.
Charles Jennings was chief learning officer at Reuters and Thomson Reuters. He now works as an independent consultant on learning and performance. Details of Charles consultancy work and his blog can be found on his website www.duntroon.com
- 9505 reads
- login or register to post comments
- Add to a social bookmarking site
Learning objectives
I have only one comment to make. In my entire life (and it's been a long one), I have only walked out of one training course halfway throuhg (or at any time before it ended). Why - because we were never told what the learning objectives were at the beginning of a session, so I could never decide whether I had learned anything or not. I believe that understanding what you are supposed to learn allows one to have a mental roadmap against which to check. Thus, I think bland and boring or not, it is an esential component of any learning session.
Case against creating learning objectives
Surely you do not make a case against learning objectives, just the way they are used and the failure to identify what the learners really need to learn.
I agree wholeheartedly that knowledge transer is not enough. Indeed there is an argument against bothering when so much knowledge is instantly available online.
But surely, anyone contemplating designing a training intervention, whether face to face or online, does need to think through what the learners are meant to be able to do after the intervention that they could not do before?
They might even need to do that currently unfashionable thing, needs analysis.
Or trainers can just 'busk it' as I have seen so many do. While the learners wonder why they are wasting their time attending.
Your article did prompt me to think, and reply!
Thanks
John Roscoe
Learning objectives
I agree with Charles 's point about checking whether the learning has improved performance at a later date. However I also agree with the first comment. Surely it is the way those 'learning objectives' are given and explained at the beginning of the training. I work in the voluntary sector and deliver both accredited and non- accredited training to volunteers and staff of voluntary /community groups. Apart from pre-course information on what the course covers (learning objectives) At the beginning of the session learners are asked what they what to gain from the session/course. This is then linked to the learning objectives and revisited either at the end of the session( for one day courses) or throughout the course (for longer training). The learners and their line managers are then contacted between one and three months later to see how that learning has impacted on the learner and the organisation. Obviously this does depend on the type of training but I think it is more how than what.
Are Lists for Losers?
Training objectives useful or old hat? Both are true. Training Objectives do provide trainers with a 'map' to design the learning, they also provide learners with an idea of what will covered on the learning event.
We all agree that Managers need to promote the idea of training and encourage the development of people in the workplace and the reason that training or learning fails in the workplace is the lack of support by managers, one of the main reasons cited in leaver reports, of new skills gained and the ability to use them.
Training objectives do serve as a marketing tool as well. Training Consultants, Training Departments and HR Departments use them to advertise training to their customers so that they can understand what the training is about and what 'improvements' can be expected at the end.
Measuring the learning at the end of the course is an effective way to see the affect that the training has had on the delegates and yes, it does measure short term memory but, an evaluation written well can measure effectively what learning has taken place. Evaluating back in the workplace after the event (usually 2-3 months) will then test if the training or learning was used. Training objectives will remind you, the trainer, what it was the learners achieved.
It is true training needs to be more than a tick box exercise and it must affect the performance back in the work place especially during the current economic climate. Trainers need to be more than instructors today, training objectives still have their place but need to be used as a gudie for design and an indication for the delegates. They still need to be engaged from the start, and feel that they have achieved something at the end.
Learning Objectives vs Learning Outcomes
Charles, I agree that a list of learning objectives can be very demotivating - I have seen a PowerPoint slide with 20+! However, I'm not sure your examples best illustrate the point?
Your first clearly involves an actionable outcome which can be measured ie the individual will be able to tie shoelaces in a double bow. I suggest this is more useful than "You will know/understand how to..." If my job role requires me to tie double bows and I currently can't, then this might be a very motivating objective for me.
The problem with your second example is the subjectivity of "tasty" but nevertheless it could be observable whether they are able to use a blender to make a fish milkshake.
Please sign me up for the course that promises I will be able to make gold out of base metal. No more motivation required!
Regards
Alan P Ward
www.PerformanceConsultants.co.uk
Don't we need both?
Surely the holy grail would be learning objectives that measure the learning in a classroom context (I’m using the word ‘classroom’ in the loosest possible sense) tightly linked to the same learning objectives measuring the learning applied in the workplace. Without a record of the learning taught, i.e. learning objectives, proving the new behaviour seen in the workplace is attributable to the learning becomes even harder than it already is because we can’t show the pathway from classroom to work.
So the flight simulator does have its place in the classroom, but the results from the simulator are only valid if the pilot’s boss also confirms they have observed the pilot flying the plane in real life, then the instructor can justifiably take some credit for the change in behaviour! So the process would look like this:
Learning Objective: At the end of the course you will be able to make gold out of base metal
Transfer Objective: You will suddenly become rich
Measurement Criteria: An independent observer will confirm your current account bank balance has increased by 90% within 3 months of the learning!
If you don't know where you are going you often don't get there.
The article is quite provocative - provocative in the terminology used and by the fact that the author doesn't really appear to belive in his initial argument damning training objectives.
It would appear that his gripe isn't really with training objectives per se, but rather with accomplishment statements that are often written into course content; "after .... you will be able to ...".
This in itself is misleading as some people will not be able to "... after the course" whilst others will greatly exceed this.
That said, I believe that trainers have a desire and indeed a duty to at least map the course / seminar / training session beforehand to provide the rails to run on. After this there is a need, which should be built into a learning event to implicate learners in their own learning process by facilitating THEM setting their own personal objectives that run parallelto the aims of the learning event.
It is often true, however, that accomplishment statements are used as adesign tool by trainers to guide themselves in the course design stage to ensure that they remain coherent with THEIR aims and this does somewhat negate the needs of learners. The Utopian ideal would be that there is no need for this type of statement in the first place - the logical stance would be that without these statements, learners would be led through a thick blanket of fog, not knowing where they would end up, by a guide who knew less about the destination that they themselves knew.
In this scenarion, there would be very few takers.
When HR managers invest in training they want / need to know what the desired end results are going to be for the investment they make. They need to ensure that strategic and business objectives are achieved - that is what business is all about.
If I, as a trainer try to sell to HR, something which has no clear framework by way of overall guiding objectives, then I ain't going to sell much.
It's a bit like buying a car - we all know what they can do (consumption / top speed, overall economy etc.and can get a better idea by reading specs., but the final performance relies a lot on how we drive it.
If I ask a car dealer how many kilometre per litre a car does, I wouldn't be too inspired or confident if the dealer replied "I don't know" or "that depends" - I know it depends but I want at least a good idea form the outset.
Learning objectives may be an old concept to you, but there are many older concepts that still stand the march of time - we need to adapt things and to innovate, but the guiding principles, which, in this case, stem from natural human logic will always remain.
Let's just keep learning objectives 'in the family'
I'm pleased this article has prompted so many comments!
Maybe I was being a little obtuse. My argument is not against learning objectives per se. They are a useful tool in the design process toolkit, but should be kept 'in the family' of learning professionals rather than presented to course participants as some form of mantra.
I've recently embarked on an online course. Its a professional photography qualification (not because I’m aiming to become a professional photographer, just a better amateur). I doubt the course designer has had any formal training in course design (he's been a subject matter expert for 30 years and I would assume hasn't had any time or inclination to study learning theory). However the course design holds together well. Where you would often see a list of ‘learning objectives’ he has simply written an introductory note to students. I think it's a decent example of a course where learning objectives are replaced by an introduction that serves to enthuse and inform and provides a motivational start, rather than simply a list of expected outcomes.
Here a couple of extracts:
‘Thank you for joining me on this twenty four week journey of discovery. I have been working as a professional photographer for over 30 years and have accumulated a great wealth of practical knowledge about photography and the photography business, which I will share with you.’
“It is my intention to run this course in a relaxed and informative manner that is light on jargon and only as technical as it needs to be. A word of warning! This is not a course for boffins or gadget freaks.”
He goes on to enthuse about the world of professional photography and the opportunities it opens up. A student reading this can't help but feel enthusiastic about getting started and can't help feel that they will learn all the basics of BEING a professional photographer.
Apart from this introductory note, there was an outline of the course modules in the (beautifully presented) prospectus PDF with details of the course team. Nothing else was needed. I reviewed the course outline and quality of the team and felt very happy to embark on this learning 'voyage of discovery'. I certainly didn’t need to be told that ‘at the end of this course/module you will be able to ….’
Learning IS a personal voyage of discovery. All I'd say is let's not muddy the water with explicit learning objectives at every step.
Charles
Whose objectives?
I am reminded of the time I ran a leadership development programme many years ago. Towards the end a participant on my left lit up: "I now realise that I need to loosen up, to consult more and be less prescriptive". In response another group member said: "That's interesting. I was just thinking that I need to get a bit firmer, to stand up as a leader and give more direction". They had both experienced the same session - with the same objectives - but had learnt very different things. The direction of the goal, the destination, is entirely dependant on the position you start from.
I was brought up on behavioural learning objectives with their strict formula of performance (or outcomes), conditions and standards. I later learnt about learning goals and their fit with individuals' diverse learning outcomes. Both offer clarity of purpose which is to be cherised. However, I have also learnt that formulaic objectives often don't read well in marketing materials - the pure form is for the training designer; there needs to be a plain English version too.
The objectives that only seek to meaure the direct outputs from the training inputs - such as knowledge gained - can narrow one's horizons. It is like trying to assess the quality of a meal by measuring the proprtions of the ingredients. The further down the value chain you can go in defining the desired outcome the better. This helps keep the focus on the ultimate goal.
I have also learnt that many trainers fall into one of two camps - the 'objectives are vital' camp and the 'objectives are old hat' camp. I have little time for those in the first camp who slavishly follow convention without thought. And I have even less time for those who rubbish objectives as a way of rationalising their laissez faire style. I rather like sitting outside both camps. I think that it is important to know the purpose and intended outcomes from training, and to express that in a meaningful way. But I also continually remind myself that it is only the learner that can have a true learning objective, and sometimes they learn something surprising that that had not aimed for. Some of the best learning I have experienced has been as a result of mere chance, curiousity or despite myself, and not as a result of anyone's objective however well crafted.
Graham
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else - Yogi Berra
With my course designer hat on, I'd say that I'd be pretty lost without learning objectives as they relate to the course content and learner goals as they relate to groups (ideally individuals) within the learning audience.
However, when it comes to what the learner sees, in this case in respect to managed online learning, we tend to provide on screen, user-friendly notes instead of learning objectives. I cannot remember the last client who insisted on the presentation of learning objectives.
Colin
http://icuc.co.uk
The complex reality of organizational life
Well done, Charles, for provoking the debate.
My perspective on this is informed by a view of organizations as complex social processes. As such, an up-front statement of ‘learning outcomes’ might reduce anxiety – of learners and trainers alike – but it can’t determine what participants will and will not learn. Learning takes place in the context of all of the other things that are going on for individuals in their own ‘here and now’. Often, some of the most important (that is, useful) knowledge that participants might gain has nothing to do with the manifest purpose and content of the formal event at all.
Those who design and run learning events need to become comfortable with this natural state of ‘not knowing’. And so do those who commission specific interventions. We don’t know what, specifically, each participant will learn as a result of engaging in the process. Indeed, we can't know. Nor can we say how they might decide to act as a result. Less still can we predict what impact the subsequent actions of participants and others might have on overall organizational performance.
What we can say, though, is that learning events offer new ideas, new experiences, new interactions, new possibilities, new skills, new frames, and so on. And these can provide stepping stones to improved activities, capabilities and performance. They can also lead to personal and collective insights that open up new ways of seeing, thinking and acting. In the process, new patterns of conversation might emerge. And, if the conversations change so will the organization.
What is most important here is for leaders (at all levels in the organization) to pay attention to the ways in which this 'new learning' is helping to shift the patterns of conversation and action. Actively participating in this ongoing process, to help shift those patterns in organizationally beneficial ways, is a primary leadership task and part of the wider and continuing process of individual learning and organizational change.
So, despite their "What You Will Learn" statements, leaning events can’t offer guaranteed outcomes. This might not fit neatly with the ‘measurement culture’ and ‘managerialist’ assumptions that dominate current management practice. But it is a reflection of how things are in the messy reality of everyday organizational life.
Cheers, Chris.
Of course it won't work - if the implementation is wrong!
I cannot read Charles Jennings' mind, and therefore this is a guess, not a fact: Mr Jennings believes that anything short of perfection isn't worth having.
Or, he believes in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Of course things don't work well if they are done badly, and the list of objectives near the start of the article seems to be nothing but a complete exaggeration designed to bolster Mr Jennings' point. Only it is a complete straw man, in that it is a "straw man" which Mr Jennings is able to demolish without shedding one drop of intellectual perspiration.
I do not mean by that than no one ever used a list as bad as that in real life. I DO mean that, going by my own experience, there are plenty of trainers around who know how to draw up a list of objectives that are way better than those in Mr Jennings' list. Moreover there are quite a few trainers (albeit not enough) who know how to draw up excellent lists of objectives - and implement their lists in an effective, non-dictatorial manner.
Indeed, the list is doubly strange in that it talks about what trainees will be able to do after completing the hypothetical course, even though Mr Jennings, only a few paragraphs later, complains that:
"Secondly, many training and development specialists are learning obsessed rather than performance obsessed. Their focus is on delivering content and assessing its retention by learners – on ensuring learners ‘learn’ rather than enabling people to ‘do’. Giving fish rather than fishing rods."
And having said that, I would also agree (and have done so several times on this forum) with suggestions such as "happy sheets" (immediate post-course evaluation sheets) are pretty much a complete waste of time. But just because some people use learning objectives and/or happy sheets in a highly ineffectual manner does not mean that the central concept is at fault.
Even at the best of times training tends to get treated as a poor relation, and with the credit crunch in full swing, those responsible for training budgets are even less likely to be willing to dig into their budget for anything that doesn't have clearly defined objectives.
Nor should they.
If it takes a little time to evaluate the success of a given course, so what? At least it can be evaluated IF it had clear objectives to start with.
There are various other objections to Mr Jennings' objections. But the one that is the clincher, as far as I can see, is that without if you don't define the objectives of a course, you may simply not have the clients needed to pay for the course in the first place!
Things could certainly improved - but in the way of trainers' training skills, and managers' understanding of the whole function of training.
In neither case will infanticide improve the situation.
You need flexibility...
I'm Training Manager at Business and Project Management Training company Silicon Beach Training, and when we advertise training courses we have to state some learning objectives on the outline so that our clients know what to expect - this is important for our public scheduled courses. However - as many others in this forum have commented, if the trainer just sticks rigidly to these learning objectives with no attention to each individual's learning needs this can be extremely de-motivating. We insist that our trainers spend time at the beginning of each course reviewing each attendee's requirements so that the course content can be related back to these, so that each individual leaves the course with an action plan to implement, and can follow this up at a later date with their manager to ensure that the training has been effective. A huge amount of learning will take place back at work AFTER the training course. If it's a private or bespoke course we'll discuss and agree course objectives with our client before the course so that they are aligned to organisational objectives, and also issue pre-course quetsionnaires to each delegate so that individual requirements are captured and, again, can be followed up after the training via feedback and coaching. We're often suprised to hear from our clients that they have attended courses with other providers where the trainer has stuck rigidly to the course objectives/content and refused to deal with specific issues even when asked by the attendees for advice! So I do think that leaning objectives are useful in describing what people should expect from a training event. The probkem comes when ALL they get from that event is information around those topics and no assistance in relating this information to how they are going to change the way they work in context. Colin Welch Training Manager Silicon Beach Training www.siliconbeachtraining.co.uk colin@siliconbeachtraining.co.uk
Objectives vs outcomes
The article I've been waiting to read - thank you!
When I have my design hat on I do find having objectives helps me to check each activity I create so I they do achieve what I want them to. In a workshop event it also helps the facilitator understand the point of an activity.
However, prior to design then I'll be focussed not on learning objectives but programme outcomes. So as you suggest this means really drilling down with business managers with questions such as 'What do you need people to be doing differently?' 'What would need to change for you to fix this without any external training intervention?' 'How will you know that a training internvention has been succesful?' 'What will you see and hear?' 'What performance measures will you use to gauge success?'. These too help the facilitator and supercede any learning objectives - if it becomes apparent that activities are not helping achieve the outcome (hopefully rarely if the design is good) then they need to do something that will.
As for whether the learners need to know the learning objectives? I think there are many ways to do this other than the standard slide of behaviourial objectives. Ensuring people understand what they will achieve before they attend - not just what they will learn (which can be covered in content) but how and why this will help them do a better job/enjoy what they do more. For many people changing behavour is more likely to be the result an emotional connection - try writing this in a learning objective and it becomes unmeasurable. Get them to take part in a activity that gives them an 'emotional jerk' and they commit more readily to the learning and most importantly to doing something as a result.
Teaching to the test
It seems to me that the point of this article is that too often learning objectives are tied to end-of-course assessments and as a result training is too often a matter of teaching to the test rather than attempting to improve performance.
As Will Thalheimer has written there can be many forms of learning objectives, some of which support the instructional designer and some that assist the learner. At issue is whether we too often add learning objectives because that is what the client wants. There needs to be a groundswell change in attitudes before the use of learning objectives change for the better.
Hooray for Learning Objectives
Thank you, Charles, for a thought-provoking article. I’m one of those troglodytes who think that communicating what learners are expected to learn at a learning event is a good idea. Many of the commentators have already highlighted some of the reasons for thinking that.
To touch on some of Charles’ misgivings with learning objectives:
Should we motivate learners with engaging language that draws them into the learning? Of course. But how does that prevent a trainer from stating the learning objectives clearly and succinctly?
Should trainers focus on learning objectives or performance outcomes back on the job? Why not both?
Should trainers do post-course assessments or promote learning transfer? Why not both?
Should trainers engage with the business or write learning objectives? Why not both?
I see writing and communicating learning objectives as far from being a nuisance and a detractor. In fact, I see it as an enabler for all of the above. It’s not a case of either/or. It’s a case of doing all of the above.
Working with trainers, the biggest challenge I have is getting them past simply doing a brain dump on trainees. The device I use, and teach them to use, is learning objectives. I ask them, “What is it you want your trainees to be able to *do* following the training?” By writing down structured performance outcomes, they get to clarify and structure their sessions. And then those expectations shouldn’t be kept a secret. Those expectations need to be continually reinforced and referred to during and after the training.
Yes, people will learn things not within the scope of the program. That’s great. But learning objectives are not meant to act as a straight-jacket. Yes, as Chris points out, organizations are a messy amalgam of complex social processes. But organizations don’t usually start out with the intention of breeding mess. Recognizing the mess does not mean that we need to hold every bit of the mess as a virtue. Working through, documenting and communicating learning outcomes is one move in an organization’s strategy to create value out of chaos.
Les Allan
Author: From Training to Enhanced Workplace Performance
www.businessperform.com/html/effective_training_tools.html
Twitter: http://twitter.com/leslieallan
Learning objectives are essential, but must be used correctly
A hearty thanks to Charles Jennings for stimulating this very thought-provoking discussion, and to the others who have contributed to this wonderful thread!
As stated by others in this thread, we need to be careful to not throw out the baby with the bath water here. Learning objectives are essential. However, when used poorly, learning objectives can become irrelevant, or even worse, can impede the effectiveness of learning programs.
If a learning program is designed as a solution to achieve a specific business goal (or goals), then learning objectives are essential because they serve as the 'glue' between the business goal(s) (ie, the driver as to why a training program is needed) and the intervention put in place to achieve that business goal(s).
The 'interdependence' chain is as follows...
1) Business goals
2) Competencies required to attain those goals
3) Learning objectives required to attain those competencies
4) Use of optimal learning interventions required to ensure the employees manifest the relevant competencies (personalized to each learner)
5) Assessment of learner competencies to ensure that each learner can apply that knowledge correctly (as measured by Kirkpatrick's Level 2 and Level 3 evaluations).
6) Assessment of the ROI of the learning program (as measured by a Level 4 evaluation)
One cannot skip from Step 2 to Step 4 (by leaving out Step 3).
Where learning objectives get a bad rap is that we, as training managers, make the following mistakes...
a) Do not link business goals to competencies and associated training interventions
b) Do not conduct Level 3 and Level 4 evaluations (Level 3 to ensure changes in behavior, and Level 4 to ensure positive ROI)
c) Use poorly developed learning objectives (and, likewise, do not correctly determine business goals, optimal learning interventions, Level 3 impacts, etc).
Learning objectives are essential. However, they must be used within a properly managed program that solves a particular business goal, and are linked to demonstrated changes in behavior (Level 3 evaluation).
Steve Ernst
simpleri
Learning Points
Thanks Charles for the stimulating article. Great comments.
I too am an old "Performance by Objectives" trainer. However, I have learnt that they can be de-motivating to learners, yet still a great (and very important) asset to any learning designer. In my new book for middle managers (which I am still writing), I've hit on an idea that I think combines both my need for objectives and provides a motivating overview for readers (a number of the comments on this article have mentioned the need for an overview or road map of where the learning is going).
I call these Learning Points. the idea is to give the reader an idea of what is coming up and to provide some thought provoking comments or questions. The idea is to engage the reader from the start. Here are a sample of Learning Points from my chapter on motivation.
Learning Points . . .
• As a key person in the organisation, you may be surprised to know that many people will look to you for their motivational cues.
• Your job as a manager is not to motivate your staff. Motivation is internal. Rather, you are responsible for creating an environment in which people can motivate themselves. This can be done without relying on merit increases, incentives and bonuses.
• Let your people know you value what they do. Have you told anyone lately how pleased you are with the great work they are doing?
• The need to help others motivate themselves, should pervade all management thinking and action. Only motivated people will perform at their best.
• In addition to what you can do to help others to become fully motivated, there are things that will either turn people on or turn them off. Understanding what these are, and which ones are most important to your individual people, will be the key to your success as a “motivator”.
I'd be very interested in people’s comments and feedback on this approach.
Cheers
Bob Selden, author "What To Do When You Become The Boss" http://www.whenyoubecometheboss.com/
Objectives?
I was surprised that the piece refers to "objectives". I have not used the term for many years, for the very reason that it is focused on teaching rather than learning. Instead, I - and many others in the profession, I think - use the term "outcome", as a means of indicating that there is an expectation of a link between the event and the performance of the person in the workplace.
Charles is right to observe that setting objectives/outcomes is useful for the provider; it allows them to give shape and structure to the learning event that they are charged with designing. Moreover, the learner - as the comments indicate - needs to know what the programme anticipates providing to the participants.
The key to all of this is, of course, flexibility: outcomes need to be sketched out (in the same way as an organisational strategy needs to be premised on a vision) but they should be seen as indicative. Moreover, for any learning event, the pursuit of the stated outcomes should not be allowed to obscure the possible learning artifacts that might derive from the process. And, finally, insofar as so much L&OD work these days is less about "delivering a programme" and more about creating space and place where participants can explore key issues from their workplace practice, it is essential that the pursuit of outcomes should not be allowed to get in the way of really useful (and largely unplanned and unplannable) learning.
Bottom line for me? Stick with "outcomes" rather than "objectives"; as a result, focus on performance improvement (through developing knowledge or enhancing skills) rather than assessment of teaching; use outcomes to give shape to the design and delivery of learning interventions - but ensure a relative elasticity; make sure that learners have a reasonable sense of what they are getting - and why; and never lose sight of the fact that it is the learning - both planned and unplanned - that matters in these circumstances.
Learning objectives
I feel the author's encouragement to focus on discussing the "performance issue" with business managers (for which training may or may not be the best solution) is a valuable piece of advice.
PLANNING AND LEARNING
As a FE a teacher and NVQ assessor, and now as a manager I have to say that planning will certainly lead learning. As a teacher I do not recal one session that without a lesson plan. Lesson planning does not only help me but also helps the learners to understand what is to be achieved by the end of the session. Without the guidance, the learners would not know where they are heading to, what they are learning and why they are learning. If they do not have the sense of why they are there for they would easily give up their learning and walk away from the classroom.
Same principle applies to anybody who is in a managerial position, who is responsible of staff training.
When I establish the training needs of any of my staff, I would discuss the training possibilities with the individual .
To me, without planning, the outcome of the learning would not be the same as it is expected by both sides.
Planning is the key factor which shows the learner's learning needs in the subject area
during the particular training session and it will trigger the right outcome of the learning.
All the best
NUR RAY
I guess we can't have learned anything, then?
Given that Charles didn't set out any explicit learning objectives for this article, I guess we've all been wasting our time in reading what he had to say and adding our 'two pennywoths'. We clearly couldn't have learned anything worthwhile from what, paradoxically, most commenters seem to agree has been a rich conversation!
In reality, I'm sure that we've each learned something of value - whether this has served to reinforce our current patterns of understanding or shifted them in some way. In any event, this learning has emerged from the informal and unplanned coming together of people who had been sufficiently stimulated by the initial input to want to participate further.
Sounds good to me.
What's Wrong with Learning Objectives
Chris, are you suggesting that formal training in an organizational setting is the same as a professional discussion forum?
Les Allan
Author: From Training to Enhanced Workplace Performance
Twitter: http://twitter.com/leslieallan
Development as a Conversation
Thanks, Les, for the question.
Assuming that we're not talking about basic skills training, I guess that I am saying that development events are, at their best, the same as professional discussion forums.
Whether participants are directors or first-line supervisors, my starting assumption is that they are all professionals and that their contribution to the learning is as important as mine. Ultimately, it's they who will be using (or not using!) whatever they might learn during the event, not me. And often, as I suggested in the first of my comments, some of their most significant learning might arise from conversations, interactions and insights unrelated to the explicit purpose of the event.
There are no certainties and 'one best ways' when it comes to organizational dynamics. So inviting participants to explore alternatives and come to their own conclusions as to the meaning, value and usefulness of any input I might offer seems to me to be the most sensible way forward.
I'm not in the habit of keeping a note of comments made by participants but I happened to come across one earlier today. This, with all the usual caveats, provides some prima facie evidence of this approach in action: "Chris Rodgers was knowledgeable and respectful of others’ comments. It made a welcome change not to have a patronising lecturer! It was great to have time to debate and discuss some practical ‘how tos’. "
So, for me at least, development at its best is a conversation. As this conversation and those that it spawns change, so does the organization. Change doesn't happen as a linear, n-step process; and neither, I would suggest, does learning.
Hooray for Learning Objectives
Hello Chris,
Thanks for clarifying the scope of your comment likening training to professional forums. I do get frustrated on forums sometimes when I read someone saying that training is/must be this or that. Training ranges from the 10 minute OJT session showing someone how to inspect a solder joint to a two year leadership development program. One size does not fit all.
I am still somewhat confused. Charles’ original post referred, amongst other things, to basic skills and operator training. Your last two posts refer exclusively to “development”. Yes, I agree with you 100% that allowing open discussion and conversation is critically important to the efficacy of training and development. And I argue for that strongly in my own books. But isn’t it easy to blast the usefulness of learning objectives for formal, structured training when what you are really referring to is self-directed development? Chalk is chalk and cheese is cheese.
Les Allan
Author: Writing Learning Outcomes
Twitter: http://twitter.com/leslieallan
brevity is best
Agreed. Use objectives - stated as outcomes - solely during course design.
The title of the course should reflect the overall intended outcome.
If needed, a single sentence under the title can elaborate.
When the instructor (or self-directed learning program) briefly covers the structure of the course (touching on high-level topics to be covered), the participants see what they will be learning. That is sufficient. Stating "at the end of this course, you will be able to..." is painful and in my view is the foremost reason training programs lose credibility.
Imagine if Google, before returning the results of your search, showed a line that said "we will now display the results of your search and as a result, you will see a listing of what you were searching for".
Embracing the mystery
Hi Les,
If by formal, structured training we mean acquiring basic knowledge and skills in a particular discipline, I'm happy to go along with you and others who advocate clarity in design and delivery. It makes sense to understand what outcomes are being sought in terms of increased competence. The critical thing for me then would be the need to consolidate the training, by ensuring the early and frequent opportunity to apply the newly acquired capabilities 'on the job'.
My concern is where this same logic is applied in the management development arena and similar fields, where a 'paint-by-numbers' approach to training implies that the organizational and social worlds are neatly ordered and controllable. 'Mastery' here requires a questioning and self-reflective mindset, which is willing to engage with the messy, informal and intangible realities of everyday life - mastery, that is, that embraces the mystery.
Thanks for the chance for further self-reflection and conversation!
Chris
LEARNING TAKES PLACE IN MANY WAYS - WHERE MOTIVATION BEGINS?
What I would like to say here is, without objectives and the expected outcome, neither the trainer nor the learner would know where they are heading to. However during a training session) the outcome can be vary depending on the individuals' interest and what they want to do with the knowledge to be gained , capability of learning ( fast - slow), prior knowledge, personality and so on.
Like learning how to swim- Why does an individual want to learn how to swim?
a) To survive in case of an accident
b)To win a competition-
c)To teach others
d) to show others that she/he can swim
e) socialising
The reason and the motivation to achieve the reason will affect their learning.
Some will not develop further once they think that they have learnt enough to survive
Some will go ahead and develop themselves
Some will train themselves further to be succesfull in the area
Some will have this a career choice
It is the reason and the motivation that affects their learning and the outcome of their learning. I have observed people during in-house training. Some felt that they had to do the course as it was a requirement so they had to attend. However only a few came out of the session with full understanding of everything been said/taught and shown. To me it did not show the trainer's ability to teach, but the attandees reason of attending and their motivation of learning something new.
I feel that how to motivate others in their learning/achievements would be a good subject to discuss.
All the best
Nur Ray
--
NUR
PERFORMANCE RELATED LEARNING
I agree that the learning should lead the learner to improve their performance.
If it is job related, usually people do improve as nobody wants to loose their job.
If it is personal, unless the person wants to improve their own lives/skills/knowledge the outcome of the training can be vary.
To my view the trainer still needs to set up the learning objectives, no matter how old the system is, it is still in use in education system, however the important point is here, for the trainer, to set up not only one objective but more. The reason is that there may be individuals in the class who may not at the same level with the rest of the class, and the outcome for these individuals will be different. As long as they perform what they have learnt that does matter.
Reference to assessment, it usually takes place in the classroom environment/one to one/1 day or more training courses, through out the session. Certainly the result of the assessment will show what the learners have achieved so far. However they need to know in advance what they are expected to achieve.
All the best
NUR
Save an Endangered Species: Learning Objectives
Chris agrees that for formal, structured training, “It makes sense to understand what outcomes are being sought in terms of increased competence.” Chris then advises “the need to consolidate the training, by ensuring the early and frequent opportunity to apply the newly acquired capabilities 'on the job'.” I agree 100%. My book, From Training to Enhanced Workplace Performance, is largely about how to encourage training transfer to the job.
Getting on to management development, I’m still getting confused when you use the word “training” in the same sentence. Are you talking about “training” or are you talking about “development”? Yes, we shouldn’t adopt a “paint-by-numbers” approach to management development. And yes, we should not imply that orgs are neatly ordered and controllable. And yes, mastery requires questioning and self-reflection. I agree with all of these points of yours. But what has all of this got to do with having learning objectives?
We really need to talk about a specific example, because there is such a wide variety of management development programs, ranging from action learning to coaching to structured learning sessions using a wide variety of formats, media and methods and combinations of all of these. And all with their specific organizational drivers and purposes. But I’m going to stick my neck out. In all of these manifestations, there needs to be an agreed learning outcome for the facilitator and the participants. Even if it is agreed during the course of the program. And it doesn’t have to be of the form: at the end of the session, participants will be able to … Nobody says it does.
Let me use one example. Company A decides to implement a management development program. The first question I ask is “Why”? What will be the benefit to the organization? If I’m on the Board or the Executive and about to spend $1m on the program, I’d be especially interested in the answer. OK. The answer may be, “Well, voluntary turnover is through the roof and strategic and operational objectives are missed constantly.” What learning do the managers need to fix this? Well, we don’t know because we don’t know what the managers already know and just ain’t doing.
Here’s the rub. Once the coaching or action learning program begins, through a process of discovery, each manager will come to realize what they don’t know and need to know. You know the process. Facilitator: “OK, you are telling me you need to find out how to better engage your direct reports. Let’s write that down in your learning journal and discuss next how you will go about learning that and implementing it in your department.” There’s the learning outcome, agreed and written down.
Chris, I don’t know how you run your programs, for what purposes and what learning methodologies you use. So, I’m keen to get your take on all of this. And interested to hear from others as well how they introduce learning outcomes in their management programs. Thanks again, Chris, for your lively contributions.
Les Allan
Managing Director
Business Performance Pty Ltd
www.businessperform.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/leslieallan
Learning objectives and outcomes
Nur, as a fellow FE lecturer who teaches Key Skills in a Grade 2 college, I feel the continual ramming down throats for the need to showing learning objectives for every class rather unhelpful. Unlike these other professionals I teach students who were disenfranchised at school, many of them have a 'dys' and have come to a vocational college to escape the tedium of schoollike lessons.
I agree that you do indeed have to have a structure to your session (with the instant feedback option should you be subject to an assessment) and have a set or flexible targets which should be adapted according to the experience of the class. However, the language that we are instructed to use by the powers that be automatically sets up barriers before the students even start the class. As other contributors have added, accessible, non condescending language is what is needed.
I have just been exceptionally interested to hear what those out in the real world have to say. Considering FE is supposed to set our students up for the real world, it amazes me how far behind we actually are in our own teaching practices.
COMMUNICATION!!
The facts that I have mentioned do not only reflect what I do, it also reflects the outcomes, in other words what the learners have achievef so far.
Without a a clear explanation I don't think anybody would like to attend any training session/ any classroom environment.
The importantance of communication is undeniable, so it is important the trainer to explain what the session is about/ what is expected from the trainer and the learner.
I am not sure why it has been mentioned that how much we are behind our teaching practises.
Upon request, I am happy to provide various activities which have helped the learners to put their knowledge in to practise and how much they have achieved.
--
NUR
Objectives Serve One thing - Alignment to What's In It For Me, Collectively
Thanks Charles for the wonderful wake up call.
I was once engaged to conduct training on "team-building" for a bunch of seasoned managers from an international oil company based locally. As the session progressed I began to feel most of the participants were not exactly excited with the training because they did not see the relevance and rationale behind. What I also came to know was that the company was in the midst of downsizing and many of the workers were from the department where these managers led.
Do you think the learning objectives were met, regardless of what they wrote in the happy sheets?. What was important in this scenario - objectives, training content, trainer's competence, facilities or simply appropriateness of timing ?". I am often amazed how adults can ridicule their own maturity in putting themselves through something they feel strongly against and sheer waste.
I concur with Nur, motivation is the most critical driver in determining learning and its level of achievement. Motivation - what's in it for me (us)- is the biggest obstacle and challenge to the beneficiaries of any training and development initiatives.
I strongly feel the lack of rigorous TNA is the main cause of all training related issues leading to poorly identified competency gaps; ill-defined objectives; and miscommunication. How many HR invite and involve the trainers, employees and managers to discuss the training needs? When you give lip service treatment to TNA, it affects and undermines the entire process in the value chain. What can you expect when the training is disconnected, misalligned and disengaged from the "systemic' environment in which organisations operate.
I do not wish to comment much on the merits of why we do need objectives, except that I see it serving the purpose of engaging and holding participants self accountable for learning. If you cannot get this right at the very outset, then don't expect training to produce miraclesand meet your ROI. You may want to consider other development/improvement interventions to save your time, money and hassle.
Objectives should articulate the learning output in terms of expected behaviour or performance outcome. I am not too concerned if it is listed or creatively crafted to enthuse. The accuracy of content and context is more important than style. The conduct of training can be fun, but the function of objectives and the criteria of measuring it should not be.
Training Objectives
Great stuff! This article has been read over 4000 times but there are only very few replies. I wonder why? It's a really exciting debate
Before I throw in a few comments, I want to impress that these are my personal, basic, no offence meant, non academic, non jargon views. Some may be offended at the posting but I comment on years of witnessing at
conferences and training session attended in the USA, Canada, UK and Europe in general. I do not mean to insult anyone and any similarity is purely coincidental. But I do think we need to revisit course objectives as part of course content right up front.
I have never liked what has happened to the whole concept of course objectives and I think their use has gone way off track since the 1970s when we first started looking closely at Training as a Profession outside Academic circles. However, I do understand where they come from and why Trainers like to use them in their designs.
Is it not the case in many instances in the real world, Power Point presentations are prepared in the office or burning the midnight oil the night before, even on the train or plane with the objectives coming off the top of the head or from some material reference somewhere? Maybe 'nicked' off some other presentation you went to months ago. Maybe some other canned course - but it sounds good. You are very busy and getting a course at short notice didn't help. Get a good Power Point presentation and a lazer pointer to show the audience where the words are seems to be gaining popularity and I think we all see the need to stop this.
No doubt some of these 'objectives' are there to try and meet a need but I sometimes wonder how many are there just to meet course content, canned courses, what trainers 'think' the audience should know and what trainers 'think' they will be able to do after a 25 Power Point Slide Karaoke. Stopping there for a second, the favourite objective introduction " at the end of this course you will be able to......". Sorry! the old teaching says you can't realistically make that statement. You can do your very best but you can never suggest that the student 'will' be able to. Learning is voluntary and if they don't want to learn, then they won't. At the end of this course, 'you should' would be more appropriate. And if they don't and you used the very best of your talent, then maybe it isn't your fault.
Courses specially designed to meet certain needs may be closer to perfection but in general, objectives are there for the trainer to double check on a validation process at the end of the session to see if the points were learned. Reality to a Trainer comes when there is a change of behaviour in the working practice - rarely measured. Reality to the Business Owner comes when the training provided has a positive effect on cash flow which is the real objective of the training in the first place.
I feel certain there is a better way and that is to make sure the students are involved in the design of the objectives with participation right off the bat. As a trainer and having spoken to your client, you already have an idea what is needed, so the next thing is to bring in the students/attendees and have them identify areas they would like covered in the content. "What's in it for me?" is identified and many have the same issues so this is not an impossible task. Then the students 'own' the presentation as it is tailored to their needs. Intertwined, the Trainer links the needs of the client and hopefully we are on course. At the end, the students were involved in the content, so it will be easier to validate if you did well. Then we try and have the client evaluate the work performance and tell us if there was an improvement and whether it helped save or make more money.
There are too many training assignments out there where the Trainer just gets a call " I need a presentation on Communication Skills in 2 weeks, can you do it? Its £350.00 plus expenses. Dig out the canned course and the Power Point titles are changed to suit the venue and folks, at the end of this session you will - sorry! You should be able to see the results you are looking for. I think we can do better.
Gwyn
gwynpritchard@mac.com
Learning objectives
When providing training it is essential for us to discuss objectives before the training starts. If not then we are in danger of the client not getting the training they want or think they are going to get.
Heather Buckley
Project Management Training
Learning Objectives Required
As someone who works in an industry where participants can get fired for not passing a course and where unions sue the company, claiming that the employees weren't trained properly, learning and performance objectives are a necessity and required part of our training programs. While not an exciting part of the class, we have to make it very clear to the participants what the objectives are and why they are expected to meet them.
Our objectives are tied clearly to job tasks, and our tests and performance checklists are linked directly to those objectives. Not only do the participants have to be able to recall information such as laws and regulations on written test (70%), they have to be able to perform various physical tasks, including firearm proficiency (85% on accuracy -- how well they shoot, 100% on judgment -- who they are shooting, friendly or foes). We have a reason for each cutoff score that we use, and validate the tests and content continually.
In order for our cases to stand up in court, we must be able to show that we have met the Uniform Guidelines (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/title_41/Part_60-3/toc.htm) on testing, validity, and documentation (see specifically section 3.14). All of this revolves around the tasks and learning objectives.
If the participant in these courses fails to meet the objectives, there is no "on-the-job performance" as they no longer have a job. If a law enforcement officer cannot figure out how to successfully load a firearm after being taught for two weeks, tested, remediated, and tested again, it would be irresponsible for us to put this person in the field, especially when the person knew what standard we were holding them to.
Having objectives and communicating them to the learners is critical in these types of situations.