Writing Effective Goals and Objectives for Learning
Establishing goals and objectives for learning is an important part of designing curricula. Objectives should be linked to course goals, instructional strategies, and assessment methods. Learning objectives should be brief statements of observable and measurable outcomes. They should be specific and clear and address a single skill or content area. Addressing these criteria will improve assessment of student learning.
A common guideline for writing learning objectives is known by the acronym SMART. This reminds us that learning objectives should be:
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Results-Focused
Time-Focused
Another variation of the SMART acronym states that objectives should be: specific, measurable, acceptable to the instructor, realistic to accomplish and time-limited (i.e., have a deadline).
The Three Components of a Good Objective
A learning objective typically has three components: the timeframe for learning the skill or content, an action verb, and a single content area. The statements are learner-centered and usually begin with a phrase that describes the timeline for learning the skill or content, such as “At the conclusion of this course the learner will…” The next component, the action verb, should clearly illustrate what the learner will be able to do after learning the content or skill. For example, “At the conclusion of this course, the learner will be able to differentiate between…” Avoid vague verbs such as “know” or “comprehend.” Objectives developed around these verbs will be difficult to assess. The final component, the content area or skill, should be linked to the design, purpose, and content of the course.
When selecting the action verb, consider the level of cognitive understanding required of the learner. This information can be found in frameworks for educational objectives that identify levels of understanding and appropriate objectives.
Frameworks for Educational Objectives
There are several well-known frameworks for educational objectives that can assist faculty who design courses, construct syllabi or create assessment tools. The most well-known framework was designed by Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues in 1956 and is often referred to as simply “Bloom’s Taxonomy.” More recently, Anderson and Krathwohl revised and extended Bloom’s work. Biggs (1999) offers another useful framework known as SOLO: Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes.
Establishing goals and objectives for learning is an important part of designing curricula. There are several well-known frameworks for educational objectives that can assist faculty who design courses, construct syllabi or create assessment tools. The best-known framework was designed by Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues in 1956 and is often referred to as simply “Bloom’s Taxonomy.” More recently, Anderson and Krathwohl revised and extended Bloom’s work. Biggs (1999) offers another useful framework known as SOLO: Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes.
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives I: Cognitive Domain (1956)
Anderson and Krathwohl’s Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001)
Biggs SOLO: Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (1999)
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives I: Cognitive Domain (1956)
Bloom and his colleagues introduced a framework composed of lower-order thinking skills (Levels 1-3) and higher-order skills (Levels 4-6).
Level 1: Knowledge (Recall and repeat information)
Level 2: Comprehension (Interpret and demonstrate understanding)
Level 3: Application (Apply acquired knowledge to a new problem)
Level 4: Analysis (Identify relationships and motives)
Level 5: Synthesis (Assemble facts into a coherent or new pattern)
Level 6: Evaluation (Use criteria and evidence to make and defend judgments)
Anderson and Krathwohl’s Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001)
Lower-order skills: Remember
Understand
Apply
Analyze
Evaluate
Higher-order skills: Create
Biggs SOLO: Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (1999)
The structural levels of SOLO are:
Prestructural: Student does not identify the objective
Unistructural: Identify, complete simple procedures
Multistructural: Enumerate, describe, list, combine, do algorithms
Relational: Compare/contrast, explain causes, analyze, relate, apply
Extended abstract: Theorize, generalize, hypothesize, reflect
For references and additional information, please see:
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching, and assessment: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Philadelphia: Buckingham.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E. J., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B. (Eds.). (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook II: Affective domain. New York: McKay.
The Guide to Writing Effective Goals and Objectives for Learning was developed by Kathryn Huggett, Ph.D., Director, Medical Education Development and Assessment at the Creighton University School of Medicine.
