🔎 Approaching the problem in the right order
One of the most common mistakes in pedagogy is deciding on the teaching sequence (specific modalities, for example, choosing between face-to-face or distance learning) before establishing the learning objectives (the nature of the desired change for the learner, such as mastering a new professional skill). This amounts to prioritising means over ends.
An example of this error would be an expert asked to share knowledge with colleagues who decides to produce slides before even considering what they are going to say. Another example might be a company's training manager who decides to deploy some innovation for their next training programme (MOOC, virtual reality, on-the-job learning) regardless of its pedagogical relevance.
We must admit that everything encourages us to think in the opposite direction, primarily familiarity and simplicity. A teaching modality seems immediately concrete—a role-play, a comic strip, a demonstration... Conversely, a learning objective appears abstract. Mentioning learning objectives brings to mind infinitive verbs, as in Bloom's taxonomy with its 55 verbs. A useful tool, no doubt, but complex to handle, especially for non-professionals (what's the difference between "judge" and "assess"? Philosophers could debate this endlessly...).
It is precisely because we tend to go straight to the modalities that we must get into the habit of suspending our judgement. I want to share cooking recipes, so I think of making a video—but for what reason? I might be validated in my intuition, but unless I ask myself the question, I cannot know.
It's true that modalities sometimes impose themselves as constraints: a university lecturer in a lecture hall may find it harder to involve students than a seminar leader. Nevertheless, even when this is the case, many choices remain: the university lecturer can choose whether or not to accompany their lecture with visual aids or use real-time polling tools. Whatever your teaching situation, you should never compromise the preliminary reflection on learning objectives.
🎯Setting concrete learning objectives
1️⃣ Establish the initial framework
Before setting learning objectives, an initial framing step is essential.
The Learner
No learning occurs without the learner—this flesh-and-blood individual whose abilities we wish to enhance and who is our raison d'être as educators. It seems obvious, yet we instinctively tend to forget them. Training programmes and course curricula often resemble lists of topics. Entire debates on the optimal disciplinary learning sequence in mathematics can take place without the notion of the learner entering the conversation.
That's why we must make a conscious effort, from the earliest stages, to visualise the person of the learner or at least the typical learner. This task is reminiscent of creating personas in user experience (UX) or considering the target audience in communication.
To do this, it's useful to answer a few questions (Who are they? What do they know about this subject? etc.). Let's work through an example together, placing ourselves in the context of a company training on fire safety:
Here, my learner is an employee for whom fire safety is neither their profession nor main concern. They may have some basic notions: water extinguishes fire, use a fire extinguisher, call the fire brigade. They certainly have misconceptions or bad habits (e.g., trying to extinguish a fire that's already spread too much). If I fail in my task, they risk perishing in a fire. However, unless they're suicidal, they're unlikely to question my teaching. All these elements give me some indications on how to proceed. I should start from the basics; I should explicitly mention and deconstruct prior misconceptions; I can be direct in my messages without fear of being challenged on my legitimacy.
Of course, except in tutoring, it's rare to deal with just one learner. Aren't all learners unique? Then, is the exercise of defining a typical learner futile? In an ideal world, we could adapt to each learner. In the real world, that's often impossible; however, it's usually possible to identify categories and overlaps. Suppose I teach a dance class, and it's my second lesson; I might already identify the following categories: those who have danced before and those who have never danced; those who attended the first class and those who didn't.
In all cases, identifying a person, whoever they may be, helps us ask the right questions.
The Instructor
You, in essence.
The first question to ask yourself is your identity as an educator. You might be a teacher, trainer, expert, or simply someone wishing to share knowledge or best practices. A teacher, for example, has constraints that an expert may not necessarily have (a curriculum to follow).
Next, consider the nature of your expertise. How confident are you in your messages? Several scenarios are possible. You might convey unique and objective truths, like an English teacher teaching conjugation or a salesperson demonstrating the correct use of an inflatable mattress. You might also share ideas or practices you fully believe in, without necessarily being able to label them as objective—for example, a sports coach demonstrating the "proper technique" in basketball or golf. Or you might rely on your experience and reasoning while being aware that others might disagree (a university lecturer presenting their latest theories on quantum gravity, an experienced advertiser sharing tips with a junior).
Finally, how much time do you have? Comparing the learner and the instructor is rich in lessons for the educator. Research shows that the expertise gap between learner and instructor leads to different pedagogical recommendations. Thus, when the learner and instructor have comparable levels of legitimacy and expertise (typically in a seminar of academics or experts), a "democratic" instructional style is preferable. Such a style involves, for example, asking questions and generating discussions rather than stating assertions; or speaking inclusively in the first-person plural rather than giving orders in the imperative.
However, when the instructor is presumed to hold knowledge the learner lacks (typically in primary school settings), a more directive style yields better results. In this specific case, asking the learner to generate knowledge themselves may instead create uncertainty.
2️⃣ Identify relevant errors and expected changes
A learning objective is not content. We tend to conflate pedagogy with content delivery. "I teach history." "I train people in public speaking." These statements presuppose that there is a thing—history—that is somehow sent to the learner, like a parcel or an email, in the hope they receive it intact. If that's accurate, how do we know the learner has indeed "received" "history"? Where's the acknowledgement of receipt?
One possible solution is to shift from a content logic to a pure competencies logic. The debate is heated, both in national education and professional training: should everything be reduced to competencies and action verbs? Isn't this approach too utilitarian? What about disinterested knowledge, erudition? What about wisdom? The question is valid.
However, we believe this is a false problem. Rather than reducing learning to one dimension or another, we can define learning as a change of state, from A to B. More specifically, learning would be characterised by an observable and lasting change in the ability to handle a situation independently in a satisfactory manner. Observable how, one might ask? Through a difference: what happens when learning is absent compared to when it's present. Such a change can be observed for both knowledge (it's easy to detect if someone understands what an DNA sequence consists of) and skills.
To better understand what we mean by a change of state, it can be helpful to compare learning to a story. At the beginning of the story, the learner—your protagonist—has a deficiency they may or may not be aware of: without your intervention, they risk making one or more mistakes. Throughout the story, they are plunged into an unfamiliar environment and must confront challenges that help them grow, notably trials they can only overcome by moving beyond their initial state. At the end of the story, they have succeeded in the trial, achieved the expected change, and are capable of applying what they've learned in the real world.
The relevant error answers the question: "What happens if the person isn't trained?" To identify this error, you can also ask: "What does a beginner do?" or "What do people find difficult?"
The expected change answers the question: "What happens if the person is properly trained?" To identify this expected change, you can ask: "What does a competent person do?"
Thinking in terms of relevant errors allows you to filter your learning objectives and focus on what's essential. Indeed, if there's no possible error, there's no challenge for the educator: what you want to convey is so obvious that the learner will manage perfectly well without you!
3️⃣ Organise your changes into an overall pedagogical structure
A list of changes, especially when concrete, isn't enough to develop a course or training plan, at least beyond a certain duration. It's often necessary (or required) to build a more global structure, such as a syllabus: here's what we'll cover in the first session, in the second session...
We recommend undertaking this work once you're clear on the concrete stakes for your learners—that is, the targeted changes. This will prevent you from heading into a dead end, especially since the human mind can quickly get lost in debates over concepts and categories that are, in reality, interchangeable.
To simplify this phase, we suggest some possible frameworks that will help you arrive at an initial structural hypothesis for your training:
List chronologically the major steps of what the learner needs to know how to do
List the main families of situations the learner might encounter
List the different themes the learner needs to be familiar with
Step or situation-based structures tend to be more effective for acquiring skills, while thematic structures are more justified for acquiring knowledge.
4️⃣ Adapt strategies to the observed initial state: preconceived idea or lack of information?
Recommended learning strategies for a learner starting with preconceived notions are not the same as for a learner whose mind is a blank slate.
Take the example of a learner who believes the Earth is flat. This person has constructed a mental model of the cosmos in their mind—clear yet incorrect. If you explain to this learner, "You're wrong; the Earth is not flat but round," your intervention will have little effect because it directly conflicts with their pre-existing mental model.
Conversely, if you start by asking, "In your opinion, is the Earth round or flat? Why?" before showing them the contradictions resulting from their own reasoning ("If what you're saying is true, then how do you explain that...?"), you'll have a better chance of convincing them.
Keywords: learning objectives, pedagogy, instructional design, learner analysis, educator role, relevant errors, expected changes, pedagogical structure, learning strategies, preconceived notions, e-learning.
Still have questions? For any queries or assistance, our support team is at your disposal via chat/messenger. 💬