Is there Science Behind Learning Objectives?

Using learning objectives in courses continues to be a matter of controversy for learning practitioners. The discussion isn't whether good learning should be based around specific, clear objectives; but whether stating the objectives at the beginning of a course will enhance the learning experience or increase learning acquired.

You might argue against the classic 'By the end of this learning, you will be able to' structure. I might too: stating your objectives clearly shouldn't be a detriment to motivating learners by conveying a mission.

Example: mission-oriented vs 'dry' learning objectives.

So—assuming your course is aimed towards objectives that are clear, relevant, stated in a way that will motivate learners: will stating them upfront contribute to the learning experience? I thought it would be interesting to look at some available evidence before deciding where to stand.

FINDING THE EVIDENCE

The 1970s were a prolific time for this type of research, probably in synchrony with the advent of learning technology labs. From his Computer-Assisted Instruction Center at Florida State University, Philippe Duchastel tested out his hypothesis around learning objectives with college students. His thinking model was structured around the following concepts:

• Relevant learning. What you really want people to learn. In a given course or content, there would be a number of elements which the learner should retain or perform as a result of the learning intervention. For example: a German oral lesson might address culture-related fascinating facts, but speaking German is what's relevant.

• Incidental learning. While you're taking a course, not all of what you will learn is what the course was intended for. To carry on with the same example, the cuisine, music, history, etc. in German culture are great to discover, but they're just not equal to speaking the language.

• Orienting stimuli. With great reputation in behaviorist psychology, orienting stimuli help you identify where you should focus your attention to capture the most important information. I will always remember my first lesson of Russian. As the teacher walked in, she started speaking Russian without notice. As confused as we all were, she quickly managed to draw our attention to what really mattered in the course that was just starting.

You have probably already guessed that for Duchastel, learning objectives are the orienting stimuli that point learners towards relevant learning and deviate their focus from incidental learning. He expected that, if he compared two groups of learners in the exact same situation, those who received learning objectives would perform significantly better on relevant learning—and significantly worse on incidental learning—than those who didn't receive any objectives.

CRITICISM

Unsurprisingly enough, Duchastel confirmed his hypothesis. However, if it were me, I would take it with a grain (or two) of salt:

• Duchastel's participants were tasked with reading a text. The learning objectives (for those who did receive them) were all related to 'stating' information from the text they had read. I can understand how one would want to make the learning assessment as simple as possible for this type of experimental situation, but we can't disregard it is indeed a lot easier to identify information in a text when you've been pre-warned what to watch out for: you just read with the list of objectives on the side. How would it work with more complex tasks, such as problem solving?

• Duchastel also made it clear that he only expected learners to perform better with learning objectives once they were accustomed to them. Why not with other learners? Does that mean any training intervention should come with a pre-course on learning objectives, just in case learners are not familiar with the concept? What would be the learning objectives of such a course? What is it about learning objectives that makes them so complicated to use?

As dubious as I am around Duchastel's method and conclusions, I still believe his view on learning objectives as orienting stimuli can be useful in our world of learning 50 years later.

what does this mean for me?

You can't do corporate learning without a performance outcome in mind. But, how much about it do you need to tell your learners?

• In some cases, you may not be creating custom materials for learners. Maybe you just don't have the time or budget and have a library full of relevant and irrelevant material. Using learning objectives in this case will help direct learners to what's important and help them focus efforts on key behaviours.

• If you are creating custom materials, you probably already have an opinion on whether learning objectives are necessary or not: I won't try to change your mind. What I would suggest you do is compare your course content against your learning objectives. If your learning objectives are signaling the important parts of the course, what is your incidental learning? And why are you spending time on creating a course that is addressing incidental skills? Should you be putting that effort towards other relevant efforts? Shouldn't your courses be limited only to fulfilling the learning objectives?

SCRAP OBJECTIVES?

Based on the above, you might be thinking: if my course only contains what is critical to achieve the learning objectives, and learning objectives are most useful as orienting stimuli, shouldn't I get rid of learning objectives altogether? Aren't they redundant?

In this regard, I think we still have a lot to learn form UX as a field. We should start asking ourselves: are the learning objectives bringing value to the learner as a user?

• Learning objectives might help explaining the purpose of the course, or connecting it with the business background. The purpose of certain courses may be evident, but others may require some explanation. As a kid, I personally never understood what use there could be in learning how to calculate the greatest common divisor of a number until I learned about fixie bike skid patches.

• They might also be making the course more predictable. Using a certain element of surprise in your courses shouldn't be a detriment to proper accessibility.

• Finally: are they helping learners reflect on what they have learned or get a sense of achievement? If the answer is yes, keep them.

conclusion

To sum it up, available evidence around the use of learning objectives in learning reinforces the importance of focusing learning events on what's important: even more so in a world so full of information.

The longer the content, the harder it is to retain. Make your courses concise and relevant and you will be helping learners understand how to adapt their behaviour.

SOURCES

Duchastel, P. (1972). Incidental and Relevant Learning with Instructional Objectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66-4, 481-185.