I read today a long, well-researched, well-thought-out post from from Sims Learning Connections about Writing Learning Objectives. It reminded me of a conversation I had at Learning 2007 with a small group of workplace trainers. We were discussing a completely different topic, but it turned out that 2 or 3 of them had surveyed their audiences about their training and had hit the same surprising theme: one of the things that learners panned most universally were learning objectives. They said that the learning objectives did them as students no good at all; they seemed to be there for the sake of the teacher, not the learner.
So are learning objectives worth our time and effort?
I think the article by Will at Work on the New Taxonomy for Learning Objectives is headed in the right direction. We're making a mistake when we try to write singular objectives for our training. Our objectives as trainers and instructional designers are different than our objectives as CLOs or front-line managers and are different than our objectives as learners. We should never present an objective written for one listener to another - they won't care.
- Trainers and instructional designers need objectives to tell them what the training must cover.
- Managers and executives need objectives to tell them what business purpose and strategy the training is going to help fulfill.
- Learners need objectives to tell them why this applies to their jobs and what they should be looking to take away from the training session.
- And those of us who are building the training programs have to keep all three of these sewn together like battle plans.
What would you like to see in the learning objectives of the next training program you're involved in?
Comments