Learning objective: Difference between revisions
m (→Definition) |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{incomplete}} | {{incomplete}} | ||
=Definition= | =Definition= | ||
Learning objectives are statements that define the expected goal of a curriculum, course, lesson or activity in terms of demonstrable skills or knowledge that will be acquired by a student as a result of instruction. | Learning objectives are statements that define the expected goal of a curriculum, course, lesson or activity in terms of demonstrable skills or knowledge that will be acquired by a student as a result of instruction. Learning objectives can be tied to [[competence map]]s | ||
Also known as : '''Instructional objectives''', '''learning outcomes''', '''learning goals'''. | Also known as : '''Instructional objectives''', '''learning outcomes''', '''learning goals'''. | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
See also: | See also: | ||
*[[Learning_level#Blooms_taxonomy | Bloom's taxonomy]] | * [[Learning_level#Blooms_taxonomy | Bloom's taxonomy]] | ||
* [[Competence map]] | |||
=Introduction= | =Introduction= | ||
Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
The definition of learning objectives is (or should be) the foundation of any instructional design. They are integral determining factor of [[Pedagogic strategy | strategies]] and [[Instructional design model]] and [[Instructional design method | methods]], [[Pedagogical scenario | pedagocial scenarios]] and [[Lesson planning | lesson plans]]. | The definition of learning objectives is (or should be) the foundation of any instructional design. They are integral determining factor of [[Pedagogic strategy | strategies]] and [[Instructional design model]] and [[Instructional design method | methods]], [[Pedagogical scenario | pedagocial scenarios]] and [[Lesson planning | lesson plans]]. | ||
= | = Defining learning objectives= | ||
Learning objectives when attained should be ''observable'' behaviours or actions. Words used to define learning objectives are often teacher centered and ambiguous. | Learning objectives when attained should be ''observable'' behaviours or actions. | ||
Mesurement of learning outcomes is strongly influenced by behaviorist learning psychology and educational models, in particular [[learning level|Blooms taxonomy]]. | |||
Criticism of this approach argue that some [[learning type]]s, e.g. [[problem solving]] require more complex proof of learning than typical exam texts. Some of that criticism has been addressed by Krathwohl's Revision of Blooms's Taxononmy <ref> Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2</ref>. Other propositions were formulated by Jonassen, of which we present one version below. Finally, there is a strong relationship with competency-based education based on [[competence map|competence frameworks or maps]]. | |||
== Verbs for defining learning objectives== | |||
Words used to define learning objectives are often teacher centered and ambiguous. | |||
E.g. ''Students will know the seven original member countries of the European Union and their capitals.'' | E.g. ''Students will know the seven original member countries of the European Union and their capitals.'' | ||
Line 23: | Line 32: | ||
E.g. ''Students will be able to list 5 countries in Europe and their capitals''. | E.g. ''Students will be able to list 5 countries in Europe and their capitals''. | ||
Verbs presented in the following table are lists of verbs that correspond to the cognitive domains within [[Learning_level#Blooms_taxonomy | Bloom's Taxonomy]] from CyberCampus's [http://www.radiojames.com/ObjectivesBuilder/data/downloads/WritingObjectives.pdf Tips for writing performance-based objectives]. | Verbs presented in the following table are lists of verbs that correspond to the cognitive domains within [[Learning_level#Blooms_taxonomy | Bloom's Taxonomy]] from CyberCampus's [http://www.radiojames.com/ObjectivesBuilder/data/downloads/WritingObjectives.pdf Tips for writing performance-based objectives]. | ||
Line 863: | Line 871: | ||
=References= | =References= | ||
== Cited with footnotes == | |||
<references/> | |||
== Other == | |||
* Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, R. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. | * Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, R. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. |
Latest revision as of 10:17, 18 April 2019
Definition
Learning objectives are statements that define the expected goal of a curriculum, course, lesson or activity in terms of demonstrable skills or knowledge that will be acquired by a student as a result of instruction. Learning objectives can be tied to competence maps Also known as : Instructional objectives, learning outcomes, learning goals.
Learning outputs, i.e. student productions are different. They allow follow-up (e.g. formative feedback) and measuring if learning objectives are met.
See also:
Introduction
The definition of learning objectives is (or should be) the foundation of any instructional design. They are integral determining factor of strategies and Instructional design model and methods, pedagocial scenarios and lesson plans.
Defining learning objectives
Learning objectives when attained should be observable behaviours or actions.
Mesurement of learning outcomes is strongly influenced by behaviorist learning psychology and educational models, in particular Blooms taxonomy.
Criticism of this approach argue that some learning types, e.g. problem solving require more complex proof of learning than typical exam texts. Some of that criticism has been addressed by Krathwohl's Revision of Blooms's Taxononmy [1]. Other propositions were formulated by Jonassen, of which we present one version below. Finally, there is a strong relationship with competency-based education based on competence frameworks or maps.
Verbs for defining learning objectives
Words used to define learning objectives are often teacher centered and ambiguous.
E.g. Students will know the seven original member countries of the European Union and their capitals.
Formulations such as "Student will understand, comprehend, know" are problematic in that one cannot observe knowing or comprehension. Learning objectives should be formulated in a way that specifies how learning will be observed or measured and are thus intertwined with evaluation methods. Words that describe what the student will do to show that he or she understands are more useful.
E.g. Students will be able to list 5 countries in Europe and their capitals.
Verbs presented in the following table are lists of verbs that correspond to the cognitive domains within Bloom's Taxonomy from CyberCampus's Tips for writing performance-based objectives.
Source:Kemp, J.E., Morrison, G.R., & Ross, S.M. (1998). Designing effective instruction, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Jonassen and Tessmer taxonomy of learning outcomes
Jonassen and Tessmer (1996) created an Outcomes-Based Taxonomy for the Design,Evaluation, and Research of Instructional System. Tationale for this taxonomy was based on the observation that more traditional instructional design models do not include all possible learning outcomes. In particular, metacognitive aspects and higher order problem solving skills are missing. The authors used multiple sources, e.g. trainign and design textbooks, research on existing taxonomies, learning outcomes found in articles in instructional research journals, and texts in educational psychology.
Below we reproduce the table presented in a preprint that somehow got many years ago, since we cannot find the original. Since the Training Research Journal journal is probably dead since we cannot find any online trace, we assume that we could reproduce these rather large tables.
No. |
Outcome |
Class |
Measurement |
Criteria |
1.1 |
Cued propositional information |
Declarative knowledge |
Recognition |
Accuracy |
1.2 |
Propositional information |
Declarative knowledge |
Recall |
Accuracy |
1.3 |
Acquiring bodies of information |
Declarative knowledge |
Paraphrase (gist) |
Thematic fidelity |
2.1 |
Information networking |
Structural knowledge (declarative) |
Relationships/ Similarity judgements |
Correctness/ Consistency/ Completeness |
2.2 |
Semantic mapping/ conceptual networking |
Structural knowledge (conceptual) |
Concept mapping |
Completeness/ Embeddedness/ Integratedness |
2.3 |
Structural mental models |
Structural knowledge |
Talk backs/ Pathfinder nets |
Congruence with experts |
3.1 |
Forming concepts |
Cognitive components/ structural knowledge |
Identifying/classifying New instances |
Generalization discrimination |
3.2 |
Reasoning from concepts |
Cognitive components |
Drawing conclusions, Recognizing entailments |
Logic of inclusion/inference |
3.3 |
Using procedures |
Cognitive components |
Performing procedures |
Accuracy/speed/automaticity |
3.4 |
Applying rules |
Cognitive components |
Demonstrating algorithms/ Procedures |
Accuracy/speed/automaticity |
3.5 |
Applying principles |
Cognitive components |
Drawing implications (cause, conclusion, results) |
Misconceptions/errors |
3.6 |
Complex procedures (convergent problem solving) |
Cognitive components |
Selecting/using cognitive com |
p Effectiveness/efficiency of solution strategy |
4.1 |
Identifying/ defining problem |
Situated problem solving |
Describing problem space |
Absence of pre-defined solution/real problem |
4.2 |
Decomposing problem/ Integrating cognitive components |
Situated problem solving |
Identifying issues/ operations/subproblems |
Correct operations |
4.3 |
Hypothesizing solutions |
Situated problem solving |
Generating hypotheses/ solution options |
Originality/variety/efficiency |
4.4 |
Evaluating solutions |
Situated problem solving |
Assessing hypotheses/ solution options |
Congruence with problem space/elegance |
5.1 |
Mental modeling |
Knowledge complexes |
Talk backs/teachbacks |
Congruence with experts |
6.1 |
Generating new interpretations |
Ampliative skills |
Stating/defending/ rationalizing |
Process relevance |
6.2 |
Constructing/ Applying arguments |
Ampliative skills |
Stating/defending/ rationalizing |
Compellingness |
6.3 |
Analogizing |
Ampliative skills |
Analogies |
Correctness/plausibility |
6.4 |
Inferencing |
Ampliative skills |
Inferring from knowns/ drawing implications |
Reasonableness/plausibility |
7.1 |
Articulating content (prior knowledge) |
Self knowledge |
Explaining/differentiating/ integrating performance |
Accuracy |
7.2 |
Articulating sociocultural knowledge |
Self knowledge |
Explaining/differentiating/ integrating performance |
Congruence of behavior wit mores |
7.3 |
Articulating personal strategies (strategic knowledge) |
Self knowledge (metacognition) |
Explaining/think aloud |
Congruence with work behavior |
7.4 |
Articulating cognitive prejudices/ weaknesses |
Reflective self knowledge |
Explaining/differentiating/ integrating performance |
Triangulation of personal/ social feedback |
8.1 |
Assessing task difficulty |
Executive control |
Problem assessment/ think aloud |
Accuracy |
8.2 |
Goal setting |
Executive control |
Self report/think aloud |
Problem/process relevance |
8.3 |
Allocating cognitive resources |
Executive control |
Self report/think aloud |
Problem/process relevance |
8.4 |
Assessing prior knowledge |
Executive control |
Self report/think aloud |
Problem/process relevance |
8.5 |
Assessing progress/error checking |
Executive control |
Self report/think aloud |
Process completion/think aloud |
9.1 |
Exerting effort |
Motivation (conation) |
Observation/self report |
Intensity |
9.2 |
Persisting on task (tenacity) |
Motivation (conation) |
Observation/self report |
Time on task |
9.3 |
Engaging intentionally (willingness) |
Motivation (conation) |
Observation/self report |
Mindfulness |
10.1 |
Making choices |
attitude |
Choice behavior/attitude scale |
Personal containment |
"Class" is defined as a kind of learning type.
Construct Class |
Characteristics |
Differences from related constructs |
Learning payoffs |
Ampliative skills |
Uses rules of logic and imagination to draw conclusions, explain implications, imagine possibilities. |
Problem solving is acquisition of solution method or heuristics. Ampliation is acquisition of information extension skills. |
Learners can extend and integrate knowledge on their own. Can apply knowledge to novel situations. |
Structural knowledge |
A thematic set of propositions, images, concepts, or rules interconnected by various types of relationships. |
Declarative knowledge, concepts and rules may involve the acquisition of individual outcomes without multiple relationships between them. |
Learners can better recall and transfer acquired facts and skills. Improves troubleshooting skills. Facilitates ampliation (extension) of learning. |
Self-knowledge |
Uses reflection and self-examination skills to identify cognitive and affective strengths and weaknesses. |
Executive control or learning strategies Regulation of cognitive or affective states. Self-knowledge stresses awareness of them. |
Allows learner to self-correct learning and performance. Removes emotional impediments. Develops self- regulation & distributed cognition (metacognition). |
Situated problem solving |
Emphasizes problem solving in authentic performance contexts. Identifies the suboutcomes of problem solving (identication, decomposition, etc.) |
Complex procedures have a definable set of steps or solutions. Situated problem solving proceeds by heuristics with multiple “correct” solutions. |
Facilitates problem solving transfer to workplace contexts Enables diagnosis of specific problem solving failures. |
Executive control |
Focuses upon controlling internal learning and problem solving processes. |
Motivation focuses upon control of conative and affective states during learning and problem solving, not cognitive. |
Develops problem solving efficiency. Improves teamwork and social learning. |
Motivation |
Involves the willful manipulation of task attention. effort, and enthusiasm. Has distinct suboutcomes of willigness, persistence, and effort. |
Attitudes are value-based and stable propensties to act or choose. Motivation has will-based and transient states of feeling or exerting. |
Enhances learning and performance effectiveness in all outcome domains. Develops self-regulated learning (metacognition). |
Tools
- Radio James Objectives Builder (link fixed 3/2013).
Links
Introductions for "Bloom"-type definitions
All of the following links offer similar advice. That doesn't mean that there are no alternatives. For example, in some pedagogies, the learning objectives also could be described in terms of a product that implicitly defines skills to be learned.
- See also: learning level and learning type
- Articulate Your Learning Objectives, Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University, (3/2013).
- Learning Objectives, TIPS AND TACS COURSES, niversity of Nottingham (consulted 3/2013).
- Mager's Tips on Instructional Objectives - overview of Mager's Preparing instructional objectives provided in a course at Georgia State University
- Effective Use Of Performance Objectives For Learning And Assessment (PDF), ©Teacher & Educational Development, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, 2005
- Bloom's Taxonomy (Wikipedia)
- Educational aims and objectives (Wikipedia)
- Intended Learning Outcomes, Teaching and Learning Laboratory, MIT. (consulted 3/3013)
- Developing Learning Outcomes: A Guide for Faculty UToronto (consulted 3/3013)
- Writing Quality Learning Objectives, Park University (consulted 3/3013)
- Writing learning objectives, Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence, Penn State.
Examples
- Swiss Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Training (consulted 3/2013).
References
Cited with footnotes
- ↑ Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Other
- Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, R. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
- Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. New York ; Toronto: Longmans, Green.
- Mager, R.F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: David S. Lake.
- Cybercampus, Golden Gate University, Tips for writing performance-based objectives, accessed November 16, 2009.
- Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). "Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation." Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311-328.
- McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (10thEdition). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.