3 Basic Ingredients of a Learning Objective

Like a great recipe in a treasured cookbook, every dish depends on the best ingredients. Lesson plans are the same way.

Putting a great lesson plan together requires solid objectives, which many faculty find difficult to write. Let's take a look at the three key ingredients to any learning objective and see if we can't come up with a terrific learning dish.

#1 Place one stem in large bowl

First, describe the conditions under which the objective will be met. That's your stem.

You can use a blanket condition, such as:

• After completing this lesson, the student will…
• After this unit, the student will…
• By the end of this session, the student will…

You can also use specific conditions that describe the circumstances, commands, materials, or directions you'll give the student to help them meet the objective. Examples include the following:

• Given readings in the textbook and online research, the student will…
• Given a lab partner and pertinent materials, the student will…
• On request, student will…

#2 Sprinkle in one or more active verbs

This is the part I love. Add an active verb. (See the big list at the bottom of this post.)

Use a verb that fits the task and also the level of learning desired, such as knowing, understanding, analyzing, and so forth.

#3 Add 1 heaping tablespoon of product, process, or outcome

Here's the meat of the recipe, the actual task. Plunk here what you want the student to do.

Keep it simple and direct, so it can be measured.

#4 Whip it all together

Here are some examples of complete objectives.

• Given readings in the textbook and online research, the student will be able to trace the flow of blood through the heart.
• After this unit, the student will be able to take an accurate blood pressure.
• By the end of this session, the student will be able to list three common side effects of anticoagulants.

Okay, let's eat!

Active verbs

Keep a list like this handy when writing objectives.

Click to enlarge.

Additional resources

• http://webcampus.drexelmed.edu/cme/pdf/CME%20Tools/Action%20Verbs%20for%20Objectives.pdf
• http://www.rupert.id.au/TD700-1/action-verbs.html
• http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/ems/instructor/Appendix%20I%20-%20Action%20Verbs%20Useful%20for%20Writing%20Objectives.pdf
• http://www.enmu.edu/academics/assessment/faculty/manual/verb_list.shtm

Is Your Bloom's Taxonomy Outdated?

Health care educators have been using Bloom’s taxonomy for decades to build goals and objectives. The original levels cited by Bloom inlcude — come on, recite them with me now — knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

The trouble is, I keep hearing bright, competent, high-level educators still using those terms.

Ruh-roh.

Yep, that’s right, the taxonomy being cited over and over again, on lesson plans and course syllabi, at faculty meetings and educational conferences — including one I just returned from — are woefully outdated.

Here, then, is a reasonably quick update on the “new” changes to Bloom’s original taxonomy.

Basic changes

Anderson and Krathwohl led an interdisciplinary team of experts in cognitive psychology, educational testing, and curriculum and instruction. The team worked to bring to Bloom’s innovative framework greater relevance to modern education.

The most obvious but perhaps least important changes that came out of that effort occurred in the language used for the levels of learning. The diagram below compares the levels in the original and revised versions.

Click to enlarge.

The revision team decided on using verbs instead of nouns to label the levels. It also did a bit of rearranging of levels to make the hierarchy more conceptually consistent.

The real changes, though, go much deeper than swapping nouns for gerunds.

Core change

The revised taxonomy restructures Bloom’s straightforward but one-dimensional language into a more complex, multi-layered one. The new taxonomy incorporates — intersects, if you will — different types of knowledge at each level of learning. Those types of knowledge include factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (below).

Now, it’s beyond the scope of this post, not to mention my own rather limited knowledge in this area, to delve into every level and type of knowledge. I will, however, point you to some outstanding resources (listed at the bottom) that show far better than I could how much more robust and useful the revised taxonomy is than the original.

Here’s hoping that this info will help you revise your own syllabi and lesson plans to include the brandy-spanking new, nearly 12-year-old taxonomy from our dear, departed friend, Dr. Benjamin Samuel Bloom (1913–1999).

Resources

• Wonderful explanation of the differences, by Dr. Leslie Owen Wilson
• Great faculty development resource page at Northern Illinois University
• Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy, a fascinating update for the digital age
• Tips for writing objectives from Oregan State University
• Fantastic content and interactive graphic on building learning objectives
• Well-documented wiki by Mary Forehand at the University of Georgia

Lists of verbs for the revised taxonomy

• From Teachers.net (Word document)
• From University of Tennessee
• From The Reading Sage