Are learning objectives dead? 💀
Why I think some form of sharing learning objectives is helpful for adult learners
What if you were looking for a how-to video on YouTube on how to change your car’s oil? How long would you watch a video before you give up and try a different one?
A few weeks ago, Justin Seeley shared a video and post on LinkedIn questioning whether learning objectives are outdated. Another post popped up on my LinkedIn feed on April 1 (upon examination, I’m pretty sure it’s not an April Fool’s joke) literally cursing learning objectives.
Justin’s video offers a pretty nuanced perspective, which I mostly agree with. He suggests framing objectives as hooks that still provide some structure for learners regarding what the course will cover; for example, “Want to finally be an expert in pivot tables in Microsoft Excel? In this course, I’ll walk you through it step-by-step, and by the end, you’ll be a pro.” The other LinkedIn post is not quite as nuanced and flat-out asks, “Who f***ing cares about learning objectives? Not your employees, and not your C-suite.”
In this post, I’ll discuss why I think the “hook” approach doesn’t provide enough context (both in background and results) for adult learners, and propose a different solution.
Why do I always feel the need to provide a spoiler here? Spoiler: I do think people f***ing care about learning objectives, but they probably don’t call them that. Hate to break it to you, though: they’re still learning objectives.
Laying the groundwork for learning
First, I’d like to recognize that using a hook to draw learners into the content is a great approach. Framing the hook as a question or a problem, and posing it as something you’ll answer or solve for the learners, is a helpful way to generate interest and begin to lay the groundwork for learning.
Note that I’ve said “begin”–I don’t think it’s enough context to get adult learners to stick around.
Why? There’s not enough context. For instance, in Justin’s example, he poses a hook about becoming a pivot table pro. That might be something I’m interested in, actually; I’ve used basic pivot tables before, but I know I could level up my skills.
But therein lies the problem! Will this course be useful to me? Is it just going to discuss the basics of setting up pivot tables, or will it go into more advanced and intermediate functions? There’s no clear definition of what a “pro” is, so I can’t make a decision about whether or not I should continue with this course or if it will be redundant.
Here’s how I’d frame learner-facing objectives for the course, using Justin’s hook:
Want to finally be an expert in pivot tables in Microsoft Excel? In this course, I’ll walk you through it step-by-step, and by the end, you’ll be a pro.
We’re going to do that by answering the following questions:
What can pivot tables do, and why should you use them?
How should you set up your data in Excel so it’s ready to be used in a pivot table?
How do you set up a pivot table?
What are the pivot table fields and how can you use and arrange them to display your data?
In this case, I (the learner) can get a better sense of the course beginning and end points, and more easily determine that I might not learn anything new here.
This is the same beef I have with YouTube instructional videos (you have maybe 15-30 seconds max, YouTubers) and live webinars as well. Please quickly give me an agenda so I can know whether or not it is worth my time!
Improving your learning objectives so that people f***ing care
Adult learners attend training or watch instructional videos for practical reasons, not just for entertainment. They’re going to make decisions about whether or not to continue based on those reasons.
Developing well-crafted learner-facing objectives can help adult learners make decisions about what training is useful to them, and quickly see how they can apply it in their work or daily lives.
You might have noticed that I’ve specified learner-facing objectives a couple of different times now.
I’m doing that purposefully, because objectives that you present to the learner should be different from the objectives you present to internal stakeholders. That’s because what they want out of the training, or the learning outcomes, are different.
Let’s revisit the Excel example below:
How I might initially write a learning objective for an instructional design team:
Module 1 learning objective: At the end of the module, learners on the sales and customer success teams will be able to explain what a pivot table is and why they should use them to analyze client patterns.
How I’d make this an external-facing learning objective:
Module 1 essential question: What can pivot tables do, and why should you use them?
How I’d make this an internal, or stakeholder-facing learning objective:
Business training objective of module 1: Introduce sales and customer success team members to pivot tables so they can better analyze client patterns and increase account growth rates.
What’s the difference between these objectives?
For my own purposes/instructional design team: I wrote the objective in a way that will allow me to ensure I design content and assessments that are aligned with the end goal.
For my external-facing objectives, I stripped the audience (because the learner already knows who they are) and framed it as a question the module will answer.
For internal, or stakeholder-facing, objectives, I included learning outcomes as well as the objectives. I connected these learning outcomes to business outcomes that are relevant for the organization (in this case, my fictional organization wants to focus on account growth).
Again, I hate to say it: these are all still learning objectives. They’re just framed differently for each audience so that they will care!
Learning objectives are not dead.
So, that’s my conclusion: learning objectives are not dead. This applies to learning objectives in a variety of circumstances: internal L&D, external customer education, and within formal education settings like universities.
Should we still be frame them as “learning objectives” and present them the same way to all audiences, though? Probably not. But that’s part of good instructional design, isn’t it?