Inspired from a thought provoking post via elearnspace which pointed to another great post here: I’m sure I’m doing it wrong.

Darts

So here’s what I’m thinking after reading these: Is there a proven link between learning objectives and actual learning?

I also share the training which says that successful classes have learning objectives – you know the ones: “By the end of the class, Ss will be able to…” Or “Ss will be able to define…or explain…or demonstrate….” blah blah. I have to write these things out for every class. We even ask our teachers to do the same thing.

But do learning objectives lead to learning? Do they really make any difference to you – to your students?

From an organizational standpoint, I do notice that writing out a lesson plan helps me to think about where we’re going, and how we’ll get there. And that feeling of knowing, helps me feel like I’m performing my job correctly.  But I can’t help but notice a few things…

When I plan out my lessons, the most successful rarely seem to actually follow the plan. My best classes – where both my students and myself seemed to connect deeply with what we were doing, seemed to flow quite freely from any plan I had laid out.

When classes are in flow – I’ve noticed that often the objectives that I had thought to be important before the class, seem to morph into others – or actually disappear completely.

When we march the objectives, and follow the plan, I sometimes feel like I’m stepping on something – that I’m pinning something down so that we can follow what my paper says we need to do. At the end of the class, I feel small satisfaction that we successfully followed our objectives – but did meaningful connection happen with the material we covered? Will my students be able to reproduce what we worked out OUTSIDE of the class? Will they be able to use the language we practiced on their own?

A comment on elearnspace rings true for me:

“George, somehow you’ve got to know what you want people to be able to do at the end, before you start. I agree we over do it, or mis-do it. I like van Merrienboer’s taxonomy: two objectives, the knowledge you need, and the complex decisions you make with that knowledge. I focus on the latter, naturally, because that makes the former meaningful. I suggest you hit up Will Thalheimer, who talks eloquently about objectives: what works, what doesn’t. I’ll bet he’s got the research you want ‘to hand’.

Posted by: Clark Quinn at October 24, 2008 10:57 AM”

I think we need objectives. Adult learners seem to long for them because they want to see progress. They  all seem to want to be able to measure what is known now, compared to what I knew before.  I have to agree with Clark – the focus should be on the way you apply your knowledge or abilities in real life.

Possible Conclusion: objectives that work, and that lend to learning tend to be the ones that come out of a tight connection to application in real life. But as Shareski points out, the syllabus changes, and progress is often quite hard to measure.

Effective objectives, I think, are flexible creatures – and maybe should be influenced heavily by students, and shaped by a broad destination which places value on the journey.