Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 10

pectations that assure links to work and results.
I say that good [learning] objectives
are themselves that statement of expectations”
(para. 11).
Keeping in mind a terminal goal of
a successful QM review, it will be assumed
the learning objectives are, indeed, vital
and foundational to the design of effective
and quality instruction.
It should be emphasized that, despite
their importance, learning objectives
are of little value if not constructed properly.
The most detailed, comprehensive
learning objectives are framed using the
“ABCD” model: audience, behavior, conditions,
and degree. Audience refers to the
targeted learners, behavior refers to what
the learner is expected to be able to do after
instruction, conditions refer to any setting
or circumstance in which the behavior
should occur, and degree refers to the
acceptable standard of performance of the
stated behavior. An example of an ABCD
objective is “Given a right triangle with
stated lengths of each leg, eighth-grade students
will be able to use the Pythagorean
Theorem to determine the length of the
triangle’s hypotenuse with 90% accuracy.”
In this example, the audience is “eighthgrade
students,” the behavior is “determine
the length of the triangle’s hypotenuse,” the
condition is “given a right triangle with
stated lengths of each leg,” and the degree
is “with 90% accuracy.”
In higher education environments,
including e-learning, the ABCD framework
might be overkill. The audience (“college
students” or similar) is implied by the context
of the institution or course and stating
it would be redundant. The condition is
typically also implied by the provided instructional
materials and sequence. Including
the degree element in higher education
environments has the downside of declaring
a less than optimal expectation (why
Collaborating with Faculty to Compose Objectives
9
not expect 100%?). Mastery of the objective
in college courses is typically assessed on
a sliding scale (A through F). The behavior,
then, is the most essential element of
the learning objective. This is the element
that is evaluated during a QM review, and
it is also the most misunderstood and most
misrepresented aspect.
QM Standard 2 requires learning
objectives at both the course level and
module or unit level that are student-centered
(“The student will…” as opposed to
“This course will…”) and measurable. This
measurable quality is the one with which
faculty members often seem to have the
most trouble. There are certain words and
phrases that come up time and time again
that are vague and immeasurable (see Table
1). The problem is not that instructors
(and instructional designers) don’t want
students to accomplish these objectives;
rather, these objectives cannot be assessed,
because they are too open to interpretation,
they are internal processes, or they are, by
their nature, entirely subjective. Sound
learning objectives should reflect measureable,
observable, external behaviors that
can be evaluated and assessed.
Working with Faculty
A
common practice among instructional
designers, faculty trainers,
and others who are working with
instructor-experts to compose learning objectives,
oftentimes in preparation for QM
review, is to hand over a sheet of paper with
Bloom’s Taxonomy and a list of measureable
verbs that correspond to each level of
the hierarchy. These lists are common on
the internet and found easily with a basic
search engine query. The designer or trainer
informs the instructor-expert to reframe
his or her objectives with these terms with
no further explanation or conversation.