Understanding Learning Objectives

Learning objectives encompass the intended learning achievements of students, and they can be formulated at various levels, including program, course, or unit levels. This article focuses on guiding the writing of effective learning goals for two of these levels: course outcomes and module objectives.

Course Outcomes and Module Objectives 

Course outcomes and module objectives are designed to depict the skills or attitudes that students develop through their learning interactions. Course outcomes articulate what learners will know and be able to do upon completing a course, while module objectives outline what learners will know and be able to do at the end of a module or lesson.

To be effective, well-written course outcomes and module objectives exhibit certain characteristics. They vividly describe what students should be able to demonstrate or produce as a result of completing a course or lesson. These goals employ active verbs that precisely identify the actions or outcomes that students should be able to demonstrate or produce after finishing a lesson. Furthermore, they are easily measurable through appropriate assessments.

It is important to note that learning goals, regardless of the level, should not describe the activities or actions of the instructor, such as giving a lecture or providing a demonstration. Learning goals should always be written from the student's perspective, focusing on what the students are expected to achieve or gain from the learning experience.

Why Should I Write Course Outcomes and Module Objectives? 

Learning goals provide several benefits in terms of course development and implementation. Among the benefits offered by course outcomes and module objectives are that:

• communicate expectations to learners when they are included in a syllabus or integrated into the course structure 
• provide guidelines for instruction making it easier for instructors to organize and facilitate the course
• establish targets for assessment because the expectations for learning are clearly defined 

The Structure of Learning Goals 

A well-constructed learning goal typically has four distinct components: 

1. Audience — Who is the learner?
2. Behavior — What should learners be able to do, value, or feel when they have completed the lesson?
3. Condition — Under what circumstances will learning occur?
4. Degree — To what level will the behavior or attitude need to be demonstrated?   

Often, the “Audience” can be assumed based on the course (e.g., “first-year nursing students”), so it may not need to be expressly written into individual learning goals. The “Degree” can also be considered optional if students are provided with rubrics that specify grading criteria based on levels of achievement.  

Below is an example of the structure of a module objective. Notice that “Degree” is not stated but is assumed. 

Focus on Learner Actions with Bloom’s Taxonomy 

Bloom’s Taxonomy, devised by educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom in the 1950s, categorizes the way people learn into these categories or levels: remembering, understanding, application, analysis, evaluation, and creativity. 

Within each category, Bloom identified learner actions that encourage cognitive skills. These actions (verbs) aid in writing learning goals. Bloom’s verbs enable instructors to write learning goals in a manner that is measurable and appropriately suited for the targeted level of learning. (See Bloom’s Verbs, below.) 

When developing learning goals for graduate or professional students using Bloom’s hierarchy, aim for higher levels of cognitive learning whenever possible. 

Examples of Learning Goals 

Here are examples of poorly written and well-constructed course outcomes: 

Here are examples of poorly written and well-constructed module objectives: 

References

Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA. 

Writing Learning Goals by Kevin Engler and Michelle Pearce (2020) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

What is Backward Design?

Understanding by Design is a book written by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe that offers a framework for designing courses and content units called “Backward Design.” Instructors typically approach course design in a “forward design” manner, meaning they consider the learning activities (how to teach the content), develop assessments around their learning activities, then attempt to draw connections to the learning goals of the course. In contrast, the backward design approach has instructors consider the learning goals of the course first. These learning goals embody the knowledge and skills instructors want their students to have learned when they leave the course. Once the learning goals have been established, the second stage involves consideration of assessment. The backward design framework suggests that instructors should consider these overarching learning goals and how students will be assessed prior to consideration of how to teach the content. For this reason, backward design is considered a much more intentional approach to course design than traditional methods of design.

This teaching guide will explain the benefits of incorporating backward design. Then it will elaborate on the three stages that backward design encompasses. Finally, an overview of a backward design template is provided with links to blank template pages for convenience.

The Benefits of Using Backward Design

Our lessons, units, and courses should be logically inferred from the results sought, not derived from the methods, books, and activities with which we are most comfortable. Curriculum should lay out the most effective ways of achieving specific results… in short, the best designs derive backward from the learnings sought.

In Understanding by Design, Wiggins and McTighe (2005) argue that backward design is focused primarily on student learning and understanding. When teachers are designing lessons, units, or courses, they often focus on the activities and instruction rather than the outputs of the instruction. Therefore, it can be stated that teachers often focus more on teaching rather than learning. This perspective can lead to the misconception that learning is the activity when, in fact, learning is derived from a careful consideration of the meaning of the activity.

As previously stated, backward design is beneficial to instructors because it innately encourages intentionality during the design process. It continually encourages the instructor to establish the purpose of doing something before implementing it into the curriculum. Therefore, backward design is an effective way of providing guidance for instruction and designing lessons, units, and courses. Once the learning goals, or desired results, have been identified, instructors will have an easier time developing assessments and instruction around grounded learning outcomes.

The incorporation of backward design also lends itself to transparent and explicit instruction. If the teacher has explicitly defined the learning goals of the course, then they have a better idea of what they want the students to get out of learning activities. Furthermore, if done thoroughly, it eliminates the possibility of doing certain activities and tasks for the sake of doing them. Every task and piece of instruction has a purpose that fits in with the overarching goals and goals of the course.

As the quote below highlights, teaching is not just about engaging students in content. It is also about ensuring students have the resources necessary to understand. Student learning and understanding can be gauged more accurately through a backward design approach since it leverages what students will need to know and understand during the design process in order to progress.

In teaching students for understanding, we must grasp the key idea that we are coaches of their ability to play the ‘game’ of performing with understanding, not tellers of our understanding to them on the sidelines.

The Three Stages of Backward Design

Deliberate and focused instructional design requires us as teachers and curriculum writers to make an important shift in our thinking about the nature of our job. The shift involves thinking a great deal, first, about the specific learnings sought, and the evidence of such learnings, before thinking about what we, as the teacher, will do or provide in teaching and learning activities.

_{Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.}

Stage One - Identifying Desired Results

In the first stage, the instructor must consider the learning goals of the lesson, unit, or course. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) provided a useful process for establishing curricular priorities. They suggest that the instructor ask themselves the following three questions as they progressively focus on the most valuable content:

• What should participants hear, read, view, explore, or otherwise encounter?
  • This knowledge is considered knowledge worth being familiar with. Information that fits within this question is the lowest priority content information that will be mentioned in the lesson, unit, or course.
• What knowledge and skills should participants master?
  • The knowledge and skills at this substage are considered important to know and do. The information that fits within this question could be the facts, concepts, principles, processes, strategies, and methods students should know when they leave the course.
• What are the big ideas and important understandings participants should retain?
  • The big ideas and important understandings are referred to as enduring understandings because these are the ideas that instructors want students to remember sometime after they’ve completed the course.

_{The figure above details three concentric circles as described by Wiggins and McTighe (2005)}

In the outermost circle, instructors consider the knowledge that is worth being familiar with. In the inner circle, instructors consider what is important to know and do. In the innermost circle, instructors consider enduring understandings. By answering the three questions presented at this stage, instructors will be able to determine the best content for the course. Furthermore, the answers to question #3 regarding enduring understandings can be adapted to form concrete, specific learning goals for the students; thus, identifying the desired results that instructors want their students to achieve.

Stage Two - Determine Acceptable Evidence

The second stage of backward design has instructors consider the assessments and performance tasks students will complete in order to demonstrate evidence of understanding and learning. In the previous stage, the instructor pinpointed the learning goals of the course. Therefore, they will have a clearer vision of what evidence students can provide to show they have achieved or have started to attain the goals of the course. Consider the following two questions at this stage:

1. How will I know if students have achieved the desired results?
2. What will I accept as evidence of student understanding and proficiency?

At this stage, it is important to consider a wide range of assessment methods in order to ensure that students are being assessed over the goals the instructor wants students to attain. Sometimes, the assessments do not match the learning goals, and it becomes a frustrating experience for students and instructors. Use the list below to help brainstorm assessment methods for the learning goals of the course.

• Term papers
• Short-answer quizzes
• Free-response questions
• Homework assignments
• Lab projects
• Practice problems
• Group projects
• Among many others

Stage Three - Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction 

The final stage of backward design is when instructors begin to consider how they will teach. This is when instructional strategies and learning activities should be created. With the learning goals and assessment methods established, the instructor will have a clearer vision of which strategies would work best to provide students with the resources and information necessary to attain the goals of the course. Consider the questions below:

1. What enabling knowledge (facts, concepts, principles) and skills (processes, procedures, strategies) will students need in order to perform effectively and achieve desired results?
2. What activities will equip students with the needed knowledge and skills?
3. What will need to be taught and coached, and how should it best be taught, in light of performance goals?
4. What materials and resources are best suited to accomplish these goals?

The Backward Design Template

The blank backward design template is provided at https://jaymctighe.com/resources/, and it is referred to as UbD Template 2.0. The older version (version 1.0) can also be downloaded at that site as well as other resources relevant to Understanding by Design. The template walks individuals through the stages of backward design.

References

Sample, M. (2011, August 10). Teaching for enduring understanding [Blog post]. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. It is attributed to Ryan S. Bowden (2017) and the original version can be found at https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/understanding-by-design/ 

The Significance of Alignment

Aligning assessments, learning objectives, and instructional strategies is crucial for effective teaching and learning. When these components are aligned, they work together to reinforce and support each other, leading to improved student motivation and learning outcomes. Assessments should accurately measure what students have learned based on the desired learning objectives. Learning objectives specify what students should be able to do by the end of the course. Instructional strategies are the methods and activities used to facilitate learning and achieve learning objectives. If these components are misaligned, it can hinder student progress and engagement. For example, if assessments only focus on factual recall but the learning objective is to apply analytical skills, students may feel frustrated and unmotivated. Similarly, if instructional strategies do not align with the assessment, students may not develop the necessary skills to perform well in the assessment. Therefore, well-aligned assessments require careful consideration of the learning objectives, assessments, and instructional strategies to ensure they are mutually supportive.

Why should assessments, learning objectives, and instructional strategies be aligned?

Assessments should reveal how well students have learned what we want them to learn while instruction ensures that they learn it. For this to occur, assessments, learning objectives, and instructional strategies need to be closely aligned so that they reinforce one another.

To ensure that these three components of your course are aligned, ask yourself the following questions:

• Learning objectives: What do I want students to know how to do when they leave this course?
• Assessments: What kinds of tasks will reveal whether students have achieved the learning objectives I have identified?
• Instructional strategies: What kinds of activities in and out of class will reinforce my learning objectives and prepare students for assessments?

What if the components of a course are misaligned?

If assessments are misaligned with learning objectives or instructional strategies, it can undermine both student motivation and learning. Consider these two scenarios:

1. Your objective is for students to learn to apply analytical skills, but your assessment measures only factual recall. Consequently, students hone their analytical skills and are frustrated that the exam does not measure what they learned.
2. Your assessment measures students’ ability to compare and critique the arguments of different authors, but your instructional strategies focus entirely on summarizing the arguments of different authors. Consequently, students do not learn or practice the skills of comparison and evaluation that will be assessed.

What does well-aligned assessments look like?

This table presents examples of the kinds of activities that can be used to assess different types of learning objectives (adapted from the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy).

This table does not list all possible examples of appropriate assessments. You can develop and use other assessments – just make sure that they align with your learning objectives and instructional strategies!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. It is attributed to the Carnegie Mellon University, Eberly Center, Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation, and the original version can be found at: https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/alignment.html 

What is Differentiated Instruction?

Differentiation refers to a wide variety of teaching techniques and lesson adaptations that educators use to instruct a diverse group of students, with diverse learning needs, in the same course, classroom, or learning environment. Differentiation is commonly used in “heterogeneous grouping”—an educational strategy in which students of different abilities, learning needs, and levels of academic achievement are grouped together.

In heterogeneously grouped classrooms, for example, teachers vary instructional strategies and use more flexibly designed lessons to engage student interests and address distinct learning needs—all of which may vary from student to student. The basic idea is that the primary educational objectives—making sure all students master essential knowledge, concepts, and skills—remain the same for every student, but teachers may use different instructional methods to help students meet those expectations.

Teachers who employ differentiated instructional strategies will usually adjust the elements of a lesson from one group of students to another so that those who may need more time or a different teaching approach to grasp a concept get the specialized assistance they need, while those students who have already mastered a concept can be assigned a different learning activity or move on to a new concept or lesson.

In more diverse classrooms, teachers will tailor lessons to address the unique needs of special-education students, high-achieving students, and English-language learners, for example. Teachers also use strategies such as formative assessment—periodic, in-process evaluations of what students are learning or not learning—to determine the best instructional approaches or modifications needed for each student.

Key Takeaways

Also called “differentiated instruction,” differentiation typically entails modifications to:

• practice (how teachers deliver instruction to students)
• process (how the lesson is designed for students)
• products (the kinds of work products students will be asked to complete)
• content (the specific readings, research, or materials, students will study)
• assessment (how teachers measure what students have learned)
• grouping (how students are arranged in the classroom or paired up with other students)

Differentiation vs. Scaffolding

As a general instructional strategy, differentiation shares many similarities with scaffolding, which refers to a variety of instructional techniques used to move students progressively toward stronger understanding and, ultimately, greater independence in the learning process.

Because differentiation and scaffolding techniques are used to achieve similar instructional goals—i.e., moving student learning and understanding from where it is to where it needs to be—the two approaches may be blended together in some classrooms to the point of being indistinguishable. That said, the two approaches are distinct in several ways.

When teachers differentiate instruction, they might give some students an entirely different reading (to better match their reading level and ability), give the entire class the option to choose from among several texts (so each student can pick the one that interests them most), or give the class several options for completing a related assignment (for example, the students might be allowed to write a traditional essay, draw an illustrated essay in comic-style form, create a slideshow “essay” with text and images, or deliver an oral presentation).

Alternatively, when teachers scaffold instruction, they typically break up a learning experience, concept, or skill into discrete parts, and then give students the assistance they need to learn each part. For example, teachers may give students an excerpt of a longer text to read, engage them in a discussion of the excerpt to improve their understanding of its purpose and teach them the vocabulary they need to comprehend the text before assigning them the full reading.

Teacher Practices Essential to Differentiation

1. proactive planning to address student profiles
2. modifying instructional approaches to meet student needs
3. teaching up (students should be working just above their individual comfort levels)
4. assigning respectful tasks responsive to student needs—challenging, engaging, purposeful
5. applying flexible grouping strategies (e.g., stations, interest groups, orbital studies)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. It is attributed to Paula Lombardi and the original version can be found at: https://granite.pressbooks.pub/teachingdiverselearners/chapter/differentiated-instruction-2/ 

What is Scaffolding?

The term ‘scaffolding’ comes from the works of Wood et al. (1976), and was developed as a metaphor to describe the type of assistance offered by a teacher or peer to support learning. In the process of scaffolding, the teacher helps the student master a task or concept that the student is initially unable to grasp independently. The teacher offers assistance with only those skills that are beyond the student’s capability.

Of great importance is allowing the student to complete as much of the task as possible, unassisted. The teacher only attempts to help the student with tasks that are just beyond his current capability. Student errors are expected, but, with teacher feedback and prompting, the student is able to achieve the task or goal. When the student takes responsibility for or masters the task, the teacher begins the process of “fading”, or the gradual removal of the scaffolding, which allows the student to work independently.

Scaffolding is actually a bridge used to build upon what students already know to arrive at something they do not know. If scaffolding is properly administered, it will act as an enabler, not as a disabler (Benson, 1997).

Many different facilitative tools can be utilized in scaffolding student learning. Among them are: breaking the task into smaller, more manageable parts; using ‘think aloud, or verbalizing thinking processes when completing a task; cooperative learning, which promotes teamwork and dialogue among peers; concrete prompts, questioning; coaching; cue cards or modeling.

Others might include the activation of background knowledge, giving tips, strategies, cues, and procedures. Teachers have to be mindful of keeping the learner in pursuit of the task while minimizing the learner’s stress level. Skills, or tasks too far out of reach can lead a student to his frustration level, and tasks that are too simple can cause much the same effect.

Each facilitative method used is chosen as an individually tailored instructional tool. Teachers must have an open dialogue with the students to determine what and how they are thinking in order to clear up misconceptions and individualize instruction.

Crucial to successful scaffolding is an understanding of the student’s prior knowledge and abilities. The teacher must ascertain what the student already knows so that it can be “hooked”, or connected to the new knowledge and made relevant to the learner’s life, thus increasing the motivation to learn.

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development

Inherent in scaffolded instruction is Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) idea of the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky suggests that there are two parts to a learner’s developmental level: the “actual developmental level” and the “potential developmental level”. The zone of proximal development is “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

The zone of proximal development (ZPD) can also be described as the area between what a learner can do by himself and that which can be attained with the help of a ‘more knowledgeable other’ adult or peer. The ‘more knowledgeable other’, or MKO, shares knowledge with the student to bridge the gap between what is known and what is not known. Once the student has expanded his knowledge, the actual developmental level has been expanded and the ZPD has shifted. The ZPD is always changing as the student expands and gains knowledge, so scaffolded instruction must constantly be individualized to address the changing ZPD of each student.

It was Vygotsky’s belief that “good learning” occurs in the child’s zone of proximal development. Important to teaching in the ZPD is the determination of what the student can manage on his own and allowing the student to do as much as possible without any assistance. “Fading” is the process of gradually removing the scaffolding that was put into place for the child until it is completely gone. Eventually, the child internalizes the information and becomes a self-regulated, independent learner.

Until students can demonstrate task mastery of new or difficult tasks, they are given more assistance or support from a teacher or a more knowledgeable other (MKO). As the learner moves toward mastery, the assistance or support is gradually decreased in order to shift the responsibility for learning from the MKO to the learner (Larkin, 2002).

Scaffolding is a metaphor to characterize a special type of instructional process that works in a task-sharing situation between the teacher and the learner... and encompasses two key rules: (a) help the learner with those aspects of the task that the learner cannot manage yet, and (b) allow the learner to do as much as he or she can without help (Zhao & Orey, 1999, p. 6).

Scaffolding vs. Differentiation

As a general instructional strategy, scaffolding shares many similarities with differentiation, which refers to a wide variety of teaching techniques and lesson adaptations that educators use to instruct a diverse group of students, with diverse learning needs, in the same course, classroom, or learning environment. Because scaffolding and differentiation techniques are used to achieve similar instructional goals—i.e., moving student learning and understanding from where it is to where it needs to be—the two approaches may be blended together in some classrooms to the point of being indistinguishable.

That said, the two approaches are distinct in several ways. When teachers scaffold instruction, they typically break up a learning experience, concept, or skill into discrete parts, and then give students the assistance they need to learn each part. For example, teachers may give students an excerpt of a longer text to read, engage them in a discussion of the excerpt to improve their understanding of its purpose and teach them the vocabulary they need to comprehend the text before assigning them the full reading.

Alternatively, when teachers differentiate instruction, they might give some students an entirely different reading (to better match their reading level and ability), give the entire class the option to choose from among several texts (so each student can pick the one that interests them most), or give the class several options for completing a related assignment (for example, the students might be allowed to write a traditional essay, draw an illustrated essay in comic-style form, create a slideshow “essay” with text and images, or deliver an oral presentation).

Example Scaffolds

• Gradual Complexity: Simplifying and gradually increasing the complexity, difficulty, or sophistication of lessons, assignments, or readings.
• Mini-Lessons: Breaking up a lesson into mini-lessons to progressively move students toward stronger understanding.
• Multiple Representations: Describing or illustrating a concept, problem, or process in multiple ways to ensure understanding.
• Exemplars and Models: Providing students with exemplars or models of high-quality work or processes.
• Vocabulary Preparation: Preparing students for difficult texts by teaching and reviewing challenging vocabulary.
• Clear Instructions and Goals: Clearly describe the purpose, directions, and learning goals of activities or assignments.
• Building on Prior Knowledge: Connecting new lessons to previous knowledge and personal experiences to enhance understanding and engagement.

References

Benson, B. K. (1997). Scaffolding. English Journal, 86(7), 126.

Larkin, M. J. (2002). Using scaffolded instruction to optimize learning. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. 

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Zhao, R., & Orey, M. (1999). The scaffolding process: Concepts, features, and empirical studies [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Georgia.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. It is attributed to Anne West, Janet Swanson, and Lindsay Lipscomb and the original version can be found at: https://granite.pressbooks.pub/teachingdiverselearners/chapter/scaffolding-2/ 

Understanding Curriculum Mapping

The concept of curriculum mapping was introduced by Fenwick English[1] in 1984, to provide a visual depiction of what is being taught within a program or department. A curriculum map identifies what content is taught, how it is taught, and when it is taught. The goal of curriculum mapping is to create a visual aid to determine relationships between various components of the curriculum and ensure that learning outcomes and objectives are being addressed.[2]

Process for Curriculum Mapping

Curriculum mapping requires the program and each course to define learning outcomes.  The process benefits from the involvement of as many instructors as possible. A faculty retreat can be a useful method to both write and map objectives.  Alternatively, the curriculum mapping process can begin with individual instructors mapping the content of their courses. Then multiple instructors teaching the same course work together to aggregate their maps. Once the maps are combined, all faculty members working on the mapping project review the map to identify overlaps, gaps in content, strengths, etc.

In a curriculum map, the objectives of the program are typically written on one axis, and courses (or class activities) are written on the other axis.  Within each cell, a mark is used to indicate when (either what course or lesson) that objective is taught. The following table demonstrates how components of a program can be mapped onto learning objectives.[3]

_{SLO=student learning outcome}

Faculty can also decide to differentiate between when the content is introduced, practiced, refined, or mastered by creating a key that is used instead of simply marking that the content was addressed.  The reasoning for indicating that a particular course or activity addresses an objective should be recorded.

After a summary is created, revisions in course content or delivery can be created and implemented. This process can be repeated for continuous improvement and cohesion in a department.[4]

__________

[1] English, F.W. (1984) Curriculum mapping and management, in: B.D. Sattes (Ed.) Promoting Schools Excellence through the Application of Effective Schools Research: Summary and Proceedings of a 1984 Regional Exchange Workshop.

[2] Uchiyama, K.P. & Radin, J.L. (2009). Curriculum mapping in higher education: A vehicle for collaboration. Innovations in Higher Education, 33, 271-280.

[3] http://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/howto/mapping.htm

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. It is attributed to Yale, Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, resource materials on teaching strategies and the original version can be found at: https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/curriculum-mapping