10 reasons: Why we need to kill boring ‘learning objectives’!

At the end of this course you will….” zzzzzzzzz……. How to kill learning before it has even started. Imagine if every movie started with a list of objectives; “in this film you will watch the process of a ship sail from Southampton, witness the catastrophic effect of icebergs on shipping, witness death at sea but understand that romance will be provided to keep you engaged”. Imagine Abraham Lincoln listing his objectives before delivering the Gettysburg Address. Imagine each episode of Game of Thrones starting with its objectives. It makes little sense.
1. First thing dull text
When dealing with learners who need to be motivated, excited and hooked, where attention matters, why prescribe a screenful of boring 'trainer' text as your starting point. This makes no sense, especially online, where first impressions really do matter.
2. Gagne misapplied
There’s always a villain and in this case it’s Gagne. To be fair this wasn't entirely his fault. ‘Stating the objectives’ was the second in his nine steps of instruction. Unfortunately few remember that the first step was ‘Gaining attention’ THEN ‘Stating objectives’. Most start by stating objectives putting the second step first. In any case, I have serious doubts about including the second step at all. Indeed, this nine-step approach, as I have previously stated, tends to produce formulaic, often uninspiring and over-long courses.

3. Over prescriptive

We know that people make very quick judgments of other people, often in a matter of seconds, and if you as a teacher/trainer are forced to do this prescriptive, unnatural act before you get a chance to put yourself across as an expert, practitioner and teacher, you will have got off to the worst possible start. To force teachers, trainers and lecturers to state learning objectives at the start of every session is to be over-prescriptive. It almost suggests a lack of critical thought and learning. You WILL learn this... come what may!

3. Teacher-Speak

Anyone who knows anything about speaking, writing for TV or film, designing web sites or games or any form of content that needs to keep an audience engaged, knows that immediate engagement matters. If those first impressions are a bureaucratic list of objectives, framed in teacher or training-speak, you’ll have set the wrong, dull tone. It is a behaviourist approach at odds with what we know about motivation, engagement and attention.

4. Attention killer

Arousal or attention is a necessray condition for learning. Arouse people at the start and they will remember more. Yet if the first experience many learners have is a detailed registration procedure followed by a dull list of learning objectives, attention is more likely to fall than rise. There is a strong argument for emotional engagement at the start of the learning experience, not a jargon-like list of objectives. Attention is a necessary condition for learning. To kill attention is to kill learning.

5. Little learning a dangerous thing

Even if this were a good practice, it is not easy and few have the experience to write objectives well. They end up being short and imprecise lists full of fuzzy terms such as ‘understand’, ‘know’, ‘learn’,  ‘be aware of’, ‘appreciate’ and so on. Writing a good objective in terms of actual performance, with the pre-requisite conditions (tools, conditions, presumptions), actual performance in terms of what the learners will know or be able to do and the measurable criterion such as time and so on, is not easy.

6. Time wasted

How much time is currently wasted by teachers and designers thinking about writing and delivering learning objectives. Even worse, how much learners’ time is wasted reading them. Even worse, how much attention and motivation is lost in learners by being made to sit through this bureaucratic stuff? My guess, especially if teachers, lecturers, instructors and trainers do this at the start of every lesson, lecture or module, that the waste is in the many, many millions.

7. Better to Top and tail

Rather than state learning objectives, we’d be much better focusing on productive techniques that focus on improved retention. For example, to ‘top and tail’ lectures, modules etc. so that reinforcement of learning takes place through spaced-practice. Remind people at the start of what they learned last time and at the end repeat - this form of reinforcement works.
9. Student signalling
One excuse is that learning objectives allow the student to see what they're in for and provides goals. Yet how many learners, read the objectives and say 'not for me, I'm out of here'? People on courses are there to stay. And if you really want to state goals, phrase those goals in terms or real goals personal to the learners - the exam, promotion, reputation. One could argue that it provides focus and much was made of one paper by Rothkopf in 1975. However, hard on its heels came Kibler 1976, Melton 1978, Lewis 1981, Hamilton 1986 and Ho 1985, who showed the downsides. Learning is cocomplex , sometimes attitudinal and rarely captured by often bad learning objectives.

10. Over-prescriptive behaviourism

It is important that teachers come across in a way that they feel comfortable with. Education and training has a habit of using theory, in this case 50-year-old theory, that simply refuses to budge and gets fossilized into prescriptive rules that constrict teaching and learning. The problem with this older theory is that it came when both the theorists and teacher-training world was dominated by behaviourism. It’s time we moved on.

Conclusion
Note that I’m not criticising the use of learning objectives or learning outcomes, as defined by Mager, in the design of courses. That’s a skill and practice that’s far too often absent in learning professionals. My arguments focus on boring learning objectives made explicit to learners at the start of a course. Neither is there anything wrong with bringing focus to learning. But simply shoving a list up front does, in most cases, the opposite. In truth these are old behaviourist fossils in the record, theory written and deeply rooted in the behaviourist era. We need to move on.

Mager – Mr learning objectives. In this course you will…..yawn, yawn!

Robert Mager published the second edition of his book Preparing Instructional Objectives in 1975 (first edition1962). It was an attempt to bring some rigour to the often woolly world of education and training by making learning professionals start with clear goals. It essentially says, start with the end point and work backwards. Additionally, his Criterion Referenced Instruction (CRI), an extension of Gagne’s method of instruction, is a method for the design and delivery of training. His aim was to produce a more rigorous and precise approach to the design of learning experiences based on competences and assessment that relate to defined learning or performance objectives.

Learning objectives

Learning objectives should be designed to determine the outcomes of learning. A good learning objective has to have three primary components of an objective:

1. Conditions. An objective always states the important conditions (if any) under which the performance is to occur. This could include tools, assistance or assumptions.

2. Performance. An objective always says what a learner is specifically expected to be able to do and may also describe the product or the result of the doing.

3. Criterion. Wherever possible, an objective describes the criterion of acceptable performance by describing how well the learner must perform in order to be considered acceptable.

Mager held that an important part of writing good objectives was to use ‘doing words’. These are words which describe a performance (e.g., identify, select, recall) acts which can be observed and measured. Words to avoid are fuzzy terms that describe abstract states of being (e.g. know, learn, appreciate, be aware) which are difficult to observe or measure. Mager's model is still used as a guide to good objective writing.

Criterion Referenced Instruction

His Criterion Referenced Instruction (CRI) framework is a set of methods for the design and delivery of training programs. It relies on a detailed task analysis, the identification of performance objectives, then assessment against those objectives and a modular course structure that represents the performance objectives.

Criterion Referenced Instruction (CRI) was based on five principles:

1. Competences - Instructional objectives derived from job performance should reflect the competencies (knowledge and skills) that need to be learned.

2. Scope - Learners study and practice only those skills not yet mastered to the level required by the objectives.

3. Practice - Learners must practice each skill and get feedback about the quality of their performance.

4. Reinforcement - Learners need repeated practice in key skills that are to be used often or are difficult to learn.

5. Autonomy - Learners have some freedom to choose the order in which to complete modules and progress self-paced based on their mastery of the objectives.

The advantage of this approach is that is prevents the teacher, trainer or lecturer from falling into the trap of delivering just abstract knowledge, regurgitated in written answers and essays. It pushes learners into in mastery of defined knowledge and the practice of real skills. Note that these skills may be academic e.g. analyses, critical thinking, communication and so on.

Criticism

Performance objectives can be tricky to define and miss some of the subtler aspects of the learning experience. It can lead to an over-emphasis on objectives and assessments that turn many learning events into dull and demotivating experiences for learners. The approach may also miss key issues around motivation, engagement and attention. For example, many learning experiences, be they classes, lectures, manuals or e-learning courses are plagued by dull learning objectives presented as the first event, (At the end of this course you will….) thereby dulling down the experience and failing to initially engage and increase attention.

E-learning

CRI promoted the idea of self-paced learning using a variety of media. It heavily influenced the objective-led, modular, self-paced, assessed design model that has become common in e-learning. Some have argued that it has led to the dominance of the ADDIE model. Opponents of this model prefer a more complex, iterative or rapid development models. However, for learning talks where the outcomes are clear, the model still has some worth.

Conclusion

On the positive side, Mager, like Gagne, introduced rigour into the process of instructional design. In his case, these were; learning objectives, competences and assessments. It brought discipline to training and design by pushing professionals to match learning to performance. However, behaviourism still underpinned the approach. Learners were, in effect, seen as subject to be conditioned to meet behavioural objectives and behaviourism tends to encourage behaviour at the expense of other important cognitive functions such as motivation, attention, context and so on.

Bibliography

Mager, R. (1962). Preparing Instructional Objectives Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon Publishers

Mager, R. (1975). Preparing Instructional Objectives (2nd Edition). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.

Mager, R. & Pipe, P. (1984). Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna (2nd Edition). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.

Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co. 

10 ways to make badass INTROs in online learning (& ditch dull objectives)

So many online learning programmes don’t start well. They’re often dull, overlong or, worse, a boring list of learning objectives. We have to get over the idea that we’re putting textbooks on screen. This is the web folks and the rule is – you have 2 seconds to impress. Attention is a necessary condition for learning, so your job is to raise attention and curiosity, not bore them into submission.

1. First impressions matter

First impressions matter, so they say, but in online learning they really do matter. Ebbinghaus showed us, back in 1885, that memory has a tendency towards ‘primacy and recency’, a bias in which the first and last things are retained and recalled better than what is presented in-between. So pay attention to the intro. It is the door to the learning experience and they should want to push it open. Make it relevant and memorable.

2. Titles

Too many courses are have titles that seem designed to turn you off before you’ve even started. A great title will catch attention, intrigue, give an idea of the content and even set the tone or voice of the leaning experience. Write a list of titles, one word titles, two word titles, three word titles, Why..., How to... Is there a concrete image that can be used?  How about a play on words, rather than Use of Gamification in mobile learning' try 'Game of Phones'. Pick a title that excites. That’s what movie makers do and it’s a good practice. Rather than ‘Learning technologies 101’ try “From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg’. Be more imaginative. Question? Did the title to this article get you here in the first place? One can also do a little A/B testing to get this right - this is what tech and ad companies do as a matter of course.

3. Ditch learning objectives

Straight out of behaviourism, this practice lingers on and on in courses. In online courses, avoid this edu-speak and focus on an effort that gets the learners attention. Attention is all in learning and it is counter-productive to bore them with a list of dull objectives. For more on this see 7 reasons to kill up-front learning objectives

4. Avoid padding

Subject matter experts, perhaps because they’re used to writing textbooks or manuals, have the unerring habit of writing over-long pieces called ‘Introduction to…’ or ‘The history of…’ or ‘Background to…’ at the start of courses. This is rarely either necessary or desirable. Attention is your currency, don’t devalue it by turning your subject into a snoozefest.
5. Focus on just one thing

Nothing raises attention and curiosity more than a single suprise. Most great movie openings do this. They start with being wide open then bang, focus on a close-up or one great scene. Great courses start with these surprises – a great quote, shocking statistic, compelling image, poignant question, conundrum. Think long and hard about your singular intro, as it sets the scene for the whole course. Great movies have great opening sequences. Check out this opening sequence in one of The Hangover films.... 

6. Keep it short

There’s nothing worse than an interminable legal warning, disclaimer, video, animation or boring text  introduction to a course. Your learners may have come to the course with high expectations, even low expectations. It is your job to grab and excite them. That is rarely achieved with long opening sequences. Make it count but cut to the chase. If you do have to have this stuff, make it optional, like terms and conditions, from a button.

7. Interactive

Online learning is interactive, so don’t be afraid to start with participation. Try a question, a common misconception, something that wakens the learner up, raises attention. A good ‘hinge’ question can work well. On the other hand, whatever you do, don’t start with a long learning styles quiz (because they don't exist and it will be a waste of time) or some fatuous Myers-Briggs nonsense. More on the Ponzi scheme that is Myers-Briggs here.

8. Humour

Doesn’t always work but when it does, it can do exactly what you want, raise a smile and, if relevant, make a great opening point. You can do a lot worse than raise a smile at the start of a learning experience. I made a programme for maintenance engineers once, where I deliberatly made the screen go blank. Every engineer in the world leans forward to check the power supply then the lead connections. I then switched the programme back on and said, "That's what customers feel like when their service gos down...." It raised a laugh or two.

9. Skip on return

It can be annoying to see the same intro time after time. If the user returns to a course or module across many sessions, allow them to skip the intro or remove it altogether.

10. Movies and TV

Watch the openings to Movies and TV, then ignore the fact that you have to have credits. But do pay attention to the way they use smart titles, pose questions, make you think about what you’re about to see, show a fascinating clip that you’ll see later. They want to grab you before you switch to another channel. Plagiarism is a form of flattery. Here's a list of the Top 25 film openings.

Conclusion

To get off to a good start, attention should be your aim, not showboating with overlong sequences or dull objectives. There’s no silver bullet here, as each course needs its own unique introduction. Hopefully, these ten ideas provide some sort of stimulus when you’re faced with that blank piece of paper.

Other related pieces…..

10 bloody good reasons for using much-maligned text in online learning ‪http://bit.ly/1KnJB2c 

10 essential online learning writing tips & psychology behind them ‪http://bit.ly/1JnUo6J 

10 stupid mistakes in design of Multiple Choice question ‪http://bit.ly/1JvMNCf 

10 essential points on use of (recall not recognition) open-response questions ‪http://bit.ly/1PPjIXb 

10 sound pieces of advice on use of AUDIO in online learning ‪http://bit.ly/1MccsXJ 

10 rules on how to create great GRAPHICS in online learning ‪http://bit.ly/1iguKL4 

Bloom (1913-1999) one e-learning paper you must read plus his taxonomy of learning

Bloom and e-learning

One famous paper by Benjamin Bloom, The 2 Sigma Problem, compared the lecture, formative feedback lecture and one-to-one tuition. Taking the straight lecture as the mean, he found an 84% increase in mastery above the mean for a formative approach to teaching and an astonishing 98% increase in mastery for one-to-one tuition. Google’s Peter Norvig famously said that if you only have to read one paper to support e-learning, this is it. In other words, the increase in efficacy for one-to-one because of the increase in on-task learning is immense. This paper deserves to be read by anyone looking at improving the efficacy of learning as it shows hugely significant improvements by simply altering the way teachers interact with learners. E-learning, in the widest sense of the word promises what Bloom called ‘one-to-one learning’, whether it’s through self-paced structured learning, scenario-based learning, simulations or informal learning.

Bloom’s taxonomy

However, Bloom is far better known for his hugely influential classification of learning behaviours and provided concrete measures for identifying different levels of learning. His taxonomy includes three overlapping domains;

1. Cognitive (knowledge)
2. Psychomotor (skills)
3. Affective (attitude)

It was devised to assist teachers to classify educational goals and plan and evaluate learning experiences. Unfortunately, this is about as far as most people get. They rarely dig deeper into his further six levels in the cognitive, six different aspects of psychomotor skills and his less useful, three types of affective.

Six levels of learning

This domain consisted of six levels, each with specific learning behaviours and descriptive verbs that could be used when writing instructional objectives.

Cognitive learning

1. Knowledge

·         Observation and recall of information

·         Knowledge of dates, events, places

·         Knowledge of major ideas

·         Mastery of subject matter

·         Verbs: list, define, tell, describe, identify, show, label, collect, examine, tabulate, quote, name, who, when, where, etc

2. Comprehension

·         Understanding information

·         Grasp meaning

·         Translate knowledge into new concept

·         Interpret facts, compare, contrast

·         Order, group, infer causes

·         Predict consequences

·         Verbs: summarise, interpret, contrast, predict, associate, distinguish, estimate, differentiate, discuss, extend, etc

3. Application

·         Use information

·         Use methods, concepts, theories in new situations

·         Solve problems using required skills or knowledge

·         Verbs: apply, demonstrate, calculate, complete, illustrate, show, solve, examine, modify, relate, change, classify, experiment, discover, etc

4. Analysis

·         Seeing patterns

·         Organising of parts

·         Recognition of hidden meanings

·         Identification of components

·         Verbs: analyse, separate, order, explain, connect, classify, arrange, divide, compare, select, explain, infer, etc

5. Synthesis

·         Use old ideas to create new ones

·         Generalise from given facts

·         Relate knowledge from several areas

·         Predict, raw conclusions

·         Verbs: combine, integrate, modify, rearrange, substitute, plan, create, design, invent, what if?, compose, formulate, prepare, generalise, rewrite, etc

6. Evaluation

·         Compare and discriminate between ideas

·         Assess value of theories and presentations

·         Make choices based on reasoned argument

·         Verify value of evidence

·         Recognise subjectivity

·         Verbs: assess, decide, rank, grade, test, measure, recommend, convince, select, judge, explain, discriminate, support, conclude, compare, summarise, etc

Psychomotor Learning

Reflex:

Objectives not usually set at this basic level

Fundamental movements

Applicable mostly to young children

Descriptive verbs: crawl, run, jump, change direction, etc.

Perceptual abilities:

Descriptive verbs: catch, write, balance, distinguish, manipulate, etc.

Physical abilities

Descriptive verbs: stop, increase, move quickly, change, react, etc.

Skilled movements:

Descriptive verbs: play, hit, swim, dive, use, etc

Non-discursive communication:

Descriptive verbs: express, create, mime, design, interpret, etc.

Affective Learning

Attitudes of awareness, interest, attention, concern, and responsibility

Ability to listen and respond in interactions with others

Ability to demonstrate those attitudinal characteristics, or values, which are appropriate to the situation and field of study

Criticism

Just three years before behaviourism was to receive its fatal blow from Noam Chomsky, Bloom published his now famous taxonomy of learning. Few realise that this taxonomy is now 50 years old. There have been lots of taxonomies since then that slice and dice, many variations on existing categories. Indeed we've had dozens of taxonomies which sliced and diced in all sorts of ways. We've had Biggs, Wills, Bateson, Belbin and dozens more. We seem to got stuck in the Bloom  taxonomy.

The problem with taxonomies is their attempt to pin down the complexity of cognition in a list of simple categories. In practice, learning doesn’t fall into these neat divisions. It’s a much more complex and messier set of cognitive processes, so attention has shifted to how learning meshes with memory and techniques that improve organisation, chunking, encoding, practice and recall.

Another danger is that instructionalists, like Gagne, take these taxonomies and attempt to design learning that matches these categories, destroying much of the more useful approaches which an understanding of brain science brings; such as cognitive overload, working memory limitations, top-down processing and so on. Learning theory has moved on in terms of a more detailed understanding of memory, which has put everything on a more empirical and scientific basis.

Conclusion

We have Bloom to thank for addressing the basic but important issue in education – that group learning is not always better learning. He showed that formative feedback and one-to-one tuition are indeed powerful amplifiers of learning. Bloom was also the first to really establish a solid, working taxonomy of learning, had to have his theories extended, as people realised that the tripartite classification was too narrow. The cognitive, psychomotor and affective distinction is still widely used today, which is either a testimony to Bloom’s vision, or a tendency for the training world to become stuck in old models. His taxonomy was at least a start, which ultimately led to a more professional approach to instructional practice.

Bibliography

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. Longmans, Green.

Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring, Educational Researcher, 13:6(4-16).

http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf

Guskey, T. R. (2005).Benjamin S. Bloom: Portraits of an educator. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Gagne (1916 - 2002) Universal recipe for learning (9 steps)

Robert M Gagne is best known for his nine steps for instructional design. Hetook an interest in the information processing view of learning and memory in The Conditions of Learning (1965), which outlined his learning theory. An article Learning Hierarchies in 1968 was followed by Domains of Learning in 1972. In these texts he developed his five categories of learning and a universal method for instruction defined in his nine instructional steps.

Five categories of learning

Gagne’s theory has five categories of learning:

1. Intellectual Skills: Demonstrated by classifying things and problem solving

2. Cognitive strategies: Demonstrated by their use and appropriate application

3. Verbal information: Demonstrated by stating the information accurately

4. Motor skills: Demonstrated by physical performance

5. Attitudes: Demonstrated by preferring options

This was an attempt to move beyond and widen Bloom’s tripartite distinction: Cognitive (knowledge) Psychomotor (skills) and Affective (attitude), with a taxonomy that focuses on real world activities, rather than abstractions.

Nine instructional steps

But he is better known for his single method of instruction that can be applied to all five of his categories of learning. This instructional process was to be the recipe for good instructional design. You were expected to move through them, step by step.

1. Gaining attention: Get the learner into an expectant state

2. Stating the objective: Get the learner to understand what they will be able to do as a result of the instruction

3. Stimulating recall of prior learning: Get the learner to appreciate that they posses existing relevant knowledge

4. Presenting the stimulus: Expose the learner to the content

5. Providing learning guidance: Get the learner to understand the content

6. Eliciting performance: Get the learner to demonstrate what they have learned

7. Providing feedback: Inform the learner about their performance

8. Assessing performance: Reinforce the learning

9. Enhancing retention and transfer to other contexts: Get the learner to indulge in varied practice and to generalise the new capability

Criticism

 ‘Gaining attention’ is often reduced to clichéd ice breakers or overlong animation in e-learning and rarely a truly engaging interactive event. In ‘Stating the objective’ the learner is often presented with a dull list of objectives (At the end of this course you will…). This works against the attention and arousal, necessary for learning. There is a strong argument for emotional engagement at the start of a learning experience and not a dull list of objectives. Stimulating recall of prior learning is fine but not if the content is truly new to the learner who has no real past experience to draw on and ‘Presenting the stimulus’ betrays behaviourist tendencies. However, ‘Providing learning guidance’, ‘Eliciting performance’, ‘Providing feedback’ and ‘Assessing performance’ are all sound strategies, as is ‘Enhancing retention and transfer to other contexts’. In practice, much of this is reduced to exposition.

Learning and instructional designers often use Gagne’s nine steps and there is much to commend if it is seen as a checklist. However, it can be argued that his instructional ladder leads to predictable and over-structured learning experiences, a straightjacket that strips away any sense of build and wonder. It is also inappropriate for all learning strategies, as he claimed. Scenario-based learning, many types of simulation, games pedagogies and sophisticated adaptive learning are just a few techniques that do not fit readily into this step-by-step recipe.

E-learning

Gagne has influenced much of what has appeared as self-paced e-learning over the last 30 years. This has served designers well for simple self-paced e-learning, but the step-by-step approach is now seen as inappropriate for alternative informal learning, especially informal learning and more advanced pedagogies. Some see this approach as producing formulaic, often uninspiring and over-long courses.

Conclusion

Gagne was one an early learning theorists who provided some simple and practical advice on instructional design, which in some way accounts for his success. Although his instructional model is not applicable to all types of learning, and can be seen as a restriction, he brought a certain method to design which produced lots of solid learning experiences and content.

Bibliography

Gagne, R. M. (1965). The Conditions of Learning, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gagné, R. M. (1970). Basic studies of learning hierarchies in school subjects. Berkeley,Calif: University of California.

Gagné, R. M., Richey, R., ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology., International

 Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction., & United States. (2000).The legacy of Robert M. Gagné. Syracuse, N.Y: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University