⏱️ The Essentials in 3 Minutes |
🧠 Understand the Pedagogical Value of Objectives
One of the most common mistakes in instructional design is deciding on modalities (in-person, remote, video, role play) before defining the objectives, that is, the nature of the desired change in the learner.
That is putting the means before the end. An expert who produces slides before knowing what they want to say, a training manager who deploys virtual reality regardless of its pedagogical relevance: these are two typical examples of this pitfall.
Everything pushes us to reason this way, because a modality seems immediately concrete (a role play, a demonstration, a comic strip), while a pedagogical objective seems abstract. That is precisely why it is important to impose a discipline: suspend judgment on modalities until the objectives are clear.
🪜 The 4 Steps to Identify Your Objectives
Step 1: Set the Initial Framework
Before even formulating objectives, two elements must be clarified: the learner and the instructor.
The learner
We instinctively tend to forget this: training programs often look like lists of topics, without the notion of a learner ever appearing. It takes a conscious effort to materialize the typical learner, in the manner of UX personas or "audiences" in communication.
To do this, ask yourself the following questions and draw concrete implications from them:
Question | Example (fire safety training) | What I take from it |
Who is this person? | A company employee | It is not their job: be concise |
What do they know about the subject? | Basic notions (water puts out fire...) | Start from the basics |
Do they have any misconceptions or bad reflexes? | Trying to extinguish a well-established fire, using water on a grease fire | Include these explicitly in the training |
What benefit do they get from the training? | Increase their chances of survival | They will likely be motivated |
How might they receive the training? | Without questioning the expertise | You can be direct |
In real life, you will rarely have a single learner. But identifying a typical person, even an approximate one, helps you ask the right questions, even if it means distinguishing several categories afterward (those who already have a foundation, those who do not).
The instructor
Three questions to ask yourself:
What is your identity as an educator? Teacher, trainer, expert, practitioner wanting to share a best practice. Each role implies different constraints.
How confident are you in your messages? Are they objective truths (English conjugation, a product manual)? Practices you trust without them being objective (the "right gesture" in sport)? Or viewpoints built on experience that could be debated?
How much time do you have? The expertise gap between learner and instructor has direct implications: when the instructor holds knowledge the learner lacks, a more directive style produces better results. When levels are comparable, a participative style (open questions, discussions) will be more effective.
Step 2: Identify the Relevant Errors and Expected Changes
A pedagogical objective is not content. "I am training on public speaking" or "I am teaching history" presupposes that knowledge is sent to the learner like a parcel, with no acknowledgment of receipt.
A more robust approach is to define learning as a change of state, from A to B. This change can be observed for both knowledge and know-how.
For each objective, identify:
Initial state: the relevant error | Final state: the expected change |
"I only approach clients who seem ready to buy." | "I approach all clients, including those who do not seem immediately ready." |
"I insist on providing care to an uncooperative patient." | "I offer the patient the opportunity to perform the care themselves." |
The relevant error answers: "What happens if the person is not trained?" You can also ask yourself: "what does a beginner do?" or "what do people find difficult?"
The expected change answers: "What happens if the person is correctly trained?" Ask yourself: "what does a competent person do?"
💡 Useful filter: if no error is possible, there is no pedagogical challenge. What you want to convey is so obvious that the learner will manage perfectly well without you.
Step 3: Bring the Changes Together in an Overall Structure
A list of errors and expected changes is not enough to build a training plan over a significant duration. They need to be organized into a global structure.
Three types of breakdown are possible:
Type of breakdown | Example |
By steps (ideal for know-how) | Hook the client / Deliver the pitch / Close the sale |
By situations (ideal for know-how) | With a new client / an existing client / an angry client |
By themes (ideal for knowledge) | Fruit and vegetables / Meat and fish |
⚠️ Carry out this structuring work after clarifying the concrete challenges for your learners. Starting from structure before objectives exposes you to debates about categories and concepts that are in reality interchangeable.
Step 4: Adapt the Strategy Based on the Learner's Initial State
The strategies to adopt are not the same depending on whether the learner is starting from a prior misconception or from a simple absence of information.
Take the example of a learner who believes the Earth is flat. If you tell them directly: "you are wrong, the Earth is round," your intervention will have little effect, as it conflicts directly with their pre-existing mental model.
On the other hand, if you start by asking "in your opinion, is the Earth round or flat? Why?" before showing them the contradictions arising from their own reasoning, you will have a much better chance of convincing them.
In the presence of misconceptions: start by surfacing them, show their contradictions, create a cognitive conflict before introducing the correct knowledge.
In the absence of misconceptions: you can be more direct, provide the information, and have learners practice it without prior detour.
Keywords: objectives, pedagogical recommendations.