Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets

PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION

With the curriculum decisions made, leaders are readyto address instruction. Historically,
instructional decision making has been the responsibility of individualteachers. However, as
the expectation for instruction has become standardsand evidence based with accountability
for student learning outcomes,planning has become more ofa shared responsibility. It may be
shared among the school district curriculum and instructional specialists, the school
instructional leaders and administrators, and the school instructional personnel including
instructional coaches and classroom teachers.

Depending uponthe schooldistrict size and resources, curriculum guides mayinclude

instructional plans, sequence ofstandards to be learned, pacing guides, and recommended or
required resources as reviewed in Chapter 8. Curriculum guides that have instructional plans
may includethe standard,instructional goal oressential question instructional objective or
learning target, and evidence based teacher instructional practices to promote student
proficiency on the target standard. Even with these extended supports it is alwaysa good idea
for collaborative teamsofteachers to work together with instructional coaches and
administrators to make the instructional plan explicitly understood, agreed upon, and
implemented in a consistent manner across those with the sameresponsibility.

In independentschools, charter schools, and education organizations instruction may continue

to be an individual teacher responsibility or teachers may plan collaboratively with those
whoteach the same course or grade, justasis desirable in other contexts. The challenge is that
even when there is less support, the samedecisionsneedto be made, e.g., essential
question,learning target, for evidence based instruction.

Planningfor instruction begins with identifyingthe instructional goals and instructional

objectives. You may have heard ofinstructional goals referred toas essential questions andthe
instructional objective called the learning target.If standardsare to be taught, theyhavealready
been identified, whether CommonCore State Standardsor yourstate's version ofstandards. The
essential questionis the big idea such as, “What makesa goodfriend?” or “Howdo organisms
grow?” or “How can we measure the earth?” These essential questionsor big ideas
emergefrom the target standard andthe students’ lived experiences,in their long-term
memory,so thatthey can easily engage with and connectto the topic. Sometimes the essential
question is used to developstudents’ interests or remind them oftheir background knowledge
that is needed to moveforward with the learningtarget.

Learning targets or instructional objectives are short-term measurable objectives. They have
specified expectations for learning outcomes that are observable or measurable. For example,
there may be a standard that says: students add and subtract 20. This means that students will
be able to add and subtract numerals in various orders that have 20 as their upper limit (10 +
10 = 20; 15 + 5 = 20;20 — 8 12:20 — 2 = 18:20 — 0 = 20; ⑳ — 5 = 15;20 — 5 = 15).
One day’s learning target or short-term measurable instructional objective is: (a) students will
add by 5s to 20 and (b) students will add and subtract numerals (by 5) to 20. Since these
learning targets are measurablethe teacher expects studentsto first count orally by 5s to 20
and then subtract from 20 by 5s to 0. After counting orally, students will use mathematics
manipulatives representing Ss,to add and subtractto 20. Many teachers will teach with the
manipulatives representing 5 so that students develop the concept before practicing counting
and subtracting orally. Teachers can observeoral counting and subtracting, and seestudents as
theyline up the 5s manipulatives. Since gettingto 20 can use various numerals the teacherwill
develop learning targets for anotherday that include numerals other than 5.

ets for anotherday that include numerals other than 5. Planning for instruction includes
specifying instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning
targets (this chapter), selecting evidence based approaches (Chapter 11), and determining the
evaluation ofinstruction (Chapter 12). Toput the next task in perspective, review the
curriculum development steps addressed so far that pave the wayfor instructional planning.

« Examine needsof students in general.

« Examine needsofsociety.

Clarify philosophy ofeducation.

Identify curriculum goals (big idea may be aim, m Identify curriculum objectives or standards. *

Determine needsofstudents in the contextby subject. Plan to organize or reorganize

curriculum.

INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS OR ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES OR

LEARNING TARGETS DEFINED

Atthetop of the hierarchyintroduced in Chapter 8 and included in Table9.1, Illustration ofthe

Hierarchy of Outcomes,are aims of education from which the school district's curriculum goals
or overarching idea and curriculum objectivesor standards are derived. In turn, the curriculum
objectives or standardsserve as sourcesforthe instructional goals or essential questions
andinstructional objectives orlearning targets. Aimsare stated by prominent individuals and
groups for national, and sometimeseven international, consideration. Curriculum goals or the
overarching idea and curriculum objectives or standardsare formulated by SEA, LEA,and
education organizations. Instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives
orlearning targets are specified by teamsofteachers, curriculum leadership teams, or individual
teachers, depending upon the context. They appearin SEA and LEA curriculum documentsand
online resources, such aspacing guides, curriculum guides, sample standards
basedinstructionalunits, and othersimilar resources To put these various aims, goals, and
objectives in perspective, examine a simple example of outcomesrelated to developing
knowledge and skills for living in an information and technologicalsociety in the hierarchy
shown in Table 9.1.

TABLE 9.1 Illustration of the Hierarchy of Outcomes

* Aim. Students will develop knowledge and skills necessary for livingin an information and
technological society.

* Curriculum goal or overarchingidea. Students will use various print and nonprint resources to
gatherinformation, analyze, and generate solutions.

* Curriculum objective or standard. Students will select from various print and nonprint
resourcesto investigate and to createa strategy forsolving a given issue.

+ Instructionalgoalor essential question. Students will demonstrate how to use various print
and nonprint resources. How can print and nonprint resourcesbe used effectively and in a
complementary manner?

« Instructional objective orlearning target. Student will prioritize nonprint resources to be

investigatedto solve one local issue.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Historically, an instructional goal wasa statement of performance expected of each student in

a class, phrased in general terms without criteria ofachievement. The term instructional goal
wasused like Norman E. Gronlund’s (2004) term general instructional objective and Ralph W.
Tyler's (1949) term general objective. The student will show an understanding of the stock
market, would have been an example. The student's performance was not stated in such a
fashion that its attainment could be readily measured. Just as a curriculum goal pointed the
direction to curriculum objectives, so an instructional goal pointed the wayto instructional
objectives. An instructional objective was a statement ofperformance to be demonstrated by
each student in theclass, derived from an instructional goal and phrased in measurable and
observable terms. According to Gronlund (2004)there should be a specific learning outcome,
and with Tyler (1949)there should be a behavioral objective. The following statementis an
example of how an instructional objective would have been written before the standards
movementand before there was an expectation that all students would become proficient on
each standard. The student will convert the following fractions to percentages with 80 percent
accuracy: 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4. Instructional objectives were also known as
performanceobjectives or competencies. Tyler (1949) discussed four ways that instructional
objectives could be stated. As you review the examples you will see that they may reflect
teacheractionsin contrastto student outcomes. This difference in the measure ofsuccess, from
teacher behaviorto studentlearning,is an important change from Tyler's time.
1. Thingsthat the instructor will do.Tyler gave as examples presentthe theory ofevolui ‘to
demonstrate the nature of inductive proof, “to present the Romantic poets,” and “to introduce
four-part harmony.”

2. Topics, concepts, generalizations, or other elements ofcontentthatare to be dealt with in the

course or courses. Tyler's examples are “The Colonial Period,” and “Matter Can Be Neither
Created nor Destroye:

3. Generalized patterns of behaviorfail to indicate more specifically the content to which the
behavior applies. Tyler identified illustrationsofthis type of objective: “to developcritical
thinking,” “to develop appreciation,” and “to develop social attitudes.”

4. Termsthat identify both the kind of behaviorto be developedin the student and the content
orareaoflife in which this behavioris to operate. Tyler's examples are: “to write clear and well-
organized reportsofsocial studies projects” and “to develop an appreciation of the modern
novel.” (Tyler, 1949,pp. 4447)

Behavioral Objectives Whether to use behavioral objectives or notis a debate that raged
among educatorsfor years. Supportersof behavioral objectives argued that this approach to
instruction: * forces the teacherto be precise about what is to be accomplishe«

* enablesthe teacher to communicateto students what they must achieve;

+ simplifies evaluation;

+ makes accountability possible; and

+ makes sequencingeasier.

W. James Popham (1971), in support of behavioral objectives,wrote: Measurable instructional

objectives are designed to counteract whatis to me the most serious deficit in American
education today, namely, a preoccupation with the process without asse: ment of
consequences . .. There are at least three realmsin which measurable objectives have
considerable potential dividends:in curriculum (what goals are selected): in instruction (howto
accomplish those goals); and in evaluation (determining whether objectives ofthe instructional
sequences have been realized) . .. It perhaps because I am a convert to this position that I feel
viscerally, as well as believe rationally, that measurable objectives have been the most
significant advance in the past 10 years. (Popham, 1971 p. 76)

The opponentsof behavioral objectives held that writing behavioral objectives:

* is a waste of time;

* is dehumanizin; +
restricts creativity; and

* leads to trivial competencies.

James D. Raths (1971) voicedhis opposition to behavioralobjectivesasfollows. Consider the

long-range implications a teacher and his students must accept once it has been decided that
all students are to acquire a specific instructional objective. The teacher's task becomesat
oncedifficult and tedious. He must inform his students of the objectives to which they are
expected to aspire; he must convince them of the relevance ofthis objective to their lives; he
must give his students the opportunity to practice the behavior being taught; he must
diagnose individual differences encountered by membersofhis group; he must make
prescriptios signments based on his diagnosis and repeat the cycle again and again. Yet even
ifall programs could be set up on the basis ofbehavioral objectives and even ifstrict training
paradigms could be established to meet the objectives, who could argue that such a program
would be other than tedious and ultimately stultifying. (Raths, 1971, p.715)

Among those who opposed the use of behavioral objectives were reconceptualists who viewed
behavioral objectivesas too mechanistic because they focus on observable behavior and ignore
subjective behavior (McNeil, 2006). Some authorities faulted the specification ofinstructional
objectives as too narrow, too sequential, and too focused on specific, and inappropriate,
content. They noted the debt of instructional objectives to behavioristic psychology and looked
instead to changes evoked byconstructivist learning theories. John D. McNeil summarized
these changes: as a movement to (1) higherlevels ofthinking as opposed to the mastery
ofdiscrete tasks or skills; (2) a concern for coherence and relationship amongideas; (3) student-
initiated activities and solutions instead ofrecitation and prespecified correct responses; and
(4) students, as opposed to the teacher or the text, as an authority for knowing. (McNeil, 2006,
p. 132) McNeil’s quote soundslike foreshadowing of the CCSS underpinningsofincreased levels
of thinking and complexityin studentlearning tasks. McNeil (2006) notedthatthe research on
instructional objectives is inconclusive (p. 207). McNeil (2006) observed, however, “Objectives
sometimes help and are almost never harmful” (p. 207). As has been the case with
otherissuesin education, decisions may have been based more on philosophyor
preferencethan onresults ofresearch.

Problems with Behavioral Objectives

While the proponents and opponents argued with each other,the behavioral objectives camp
itself addedto the difficulty of convincing teachers to use behavioral objectives. Some, perhaps
overenthusiastic about the behavioral objectives movement, turned off teachers by these
actions.

« Assuming a rather dogmatic approach seemed to rule outall other methods. There was little
experimental researchto support that the behavioral objectives approach resulted in higher
student achievementthan with other approaches. It was learned that behavioral objectives can
be usefulin preinstructionalstrategies (Hartley & Davies, 1976). Objectives work betterifthey
pertain to the particular instructionaltask. Objectives are more effective with certain
kindsofinstructionthan with others and are useful in accomplishing learning at
higherlevelsofthe cognitive domain. Hartley and Davies (1976)also found that students of
average ability, male students of high socioeconomic background, and both the more
independent and less conscientious students benefit from behavioral objectives.

+ Resorting to formulas made writing behavioral objectives formulaic. As an example,the

sentence pattern that follows was commonto be used withteachersfilling in the blanksforthe
students and contentthey were teaching. Given the………………….. the student will ……..in……
minutes with a score of………………………….

Downplaying affective objectives was primary concern. By implying that itis as easy towrite
behavioral objectivesin the affective domain in the cognitive and psychomotor domains
opponentsfelt challenged.

Popham modified his view and advocated broaderbut still-measurable behavioral objectives.
Popham (2002) pointed to the danger ofencouraging teachers to write too-specific, small-
scope behavioral objectives because “theresulting piles of hyper specific instructional
objectives would so overwhelm teachersthat they would end up paying attention to no
objectives at all” (Popham, 2002, pp. 97-98).

Asspecial education cameto practice the use of measurable instructional objectivesthey were
implementedfor each identified student. A reasoned approach in the practice ofidentifying and
writing bothinstructional goals and instructional objectives has considerable merit with those
who write an individualized education plan (IEP)for each student with special needs. These
plans state both goals and behavioral objectivesfor accomplishing the goals that studentsare to
achievebythe end ofthe year. The specification of instructional objectives simplified the
selection ofinstructional approaches and resources. When stated in behavioral terms,
instructional objectives provided a basis for assessment, and had the potential to
communicate to students, parents, caregivers, and otherprofessionals exactly what students
were expected to demonstrate, if shared with them (Briggs. 1970)

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS OR ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND

INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES OR LEARNING TARGETS

Toselect and write instructional goals and instructional objectives, it will be helpful to establish
several guidelines to be followed. Considerthat instructional goals and instructional objectives:
* relate to the already specified curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards;

+ identify the domainsof learning,the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor,as applicable;

«+ align with the levelsofthinking and cognitive complexity indicated bythe standard or
curriculum objective; and + follow a few simplerules of writing.
Educators should consider the mission and vision ofall students being successful academically
and plan fortheir achievement of the instructional goals and instructional object;
Accountability forall students” learning success and not percentagesofthem being successful,is
a departure fromthe past useof instructional goals and instructional objectives.

The conception ofintellectual ability is often limitedtocognitive language and

mathematicalskills, often interpreted in terms ofa single intelligence. On the other hand, test
results generate differential aptitudes in such areasas language usage, verbal reasoning,
numeracy,spatial relations, abstract reasoning, and memory (Checkley, 1997). Howard Gardner
conceptualized the existence of sevenintelligences: bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, and spatial (Gardner, 2006). To the
seven intelligences Gardner set forth in the 1980s, he later added the concept ofnaturalist
intelligence,that is, the ability to classify nature that Gardnerdescribed as “the ability
torecognize and classify plants, minerals, and animals”(Checkley, 1997, pp. 8-9)

Add to Gardner's depiction of multiple intelligences the concepts of social intelligence as

defined by Edward L. Thorndike (1920) and emotional intelligence as perceived byPeter
Salovey and John D. Mayer. Building on Thomdike’s conception, Salovey and Mayer (1989-
1990) viewed emotional intelligence, now referred to by some people subset ofsocial
intelligence that involves the abilityto monitor one’s own and others” feelings and emotions,
todiscriminate among themand tousethis informationto guide one's thinking and actions”
(1989-1990,p. 189). You will also find in somediscussions of multiple intelligences a ninth
intelligence, the concept ofexistential intelligence,a sensitivity to spiritual and philosophical
questionsabout humankind's existence (Wilson, nd).

The concept of intelligences,in the plural, guides teachers to design instruction forall learnersto
be successful. This skillfully designed instruction does not only relate or appealto those with
strengthsthatare verbal and linguistic or mathematical, but supportsthe success of every
student

Relating Instructional Goals and Instructional Objectives to Curriculum Goals and Curriculum
Objectives or Standards

Instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets should
relatetocurriculum goals and curriculum objectivesor standards. Unlesstheinstructional
planner participatedin draftingthe curriculum goals and curriculum objectives, he or she will
want to take time to understand them. The instructional goals and instructional objectives are
derived from the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. Priorto the standards movement,
a curriculum goal for the fifth grade may have been something like: during the course of the
year students will appreciably improvetheir skills in reading. Today, more than likely the
samecurriculum goal would be rewritten to say: all fifth-grade students will make one year's
growth in reading. Fromthis general goal the following curriculum objective may have emerged
in the past before standards were adopted:bythe end of the eighth month,75 percentofthe
students will have increased theirability to comprehend a selected set ofEnglish words by 25
percent. Now, the expectation would be thata reading standard forfifth grade would
replacethe behaviorally stated curriculum objective. ‘Thefifth-grade standard maybe similar to:
students understand how textfeatures aid comprehension of informationaltext. Unlike
beforethe standards movement,there is no percentofproficiency nor a percent ofstudents who
are expected to be successful. While the curriculum objective was measurable,sois the
standard. It is understoodthatall students will demonstrateproficiency independently. The
formulation ofinstructional goals or essential questions bears a direct relationship to the
curriculum goals and curriculum objectivesor standards. Aninstructional goal may be: students
use text features to comprehend new on-grade level informational text. Written as an essential
question it may be: how can text featureshelp comprehension of newinformational text?
Instructional objectivesare written from the instructional goals oressential questions. To
promote the expectation ofreading silently, the teacher might design the following objective or
learning target related to the essential question and instructional goal in the prior paragraph:
silently, students will read a new on-gradelevel informationaltext passage and then
writeathreesentence summary of how two text featuresaided comprehension. Before NCLB
objectives may have beenwritten as minimal competenciesand the expectation was that all
students would not achieve proficiency. Those low expectationsare notthe case in the twenty-
first centuryas standardsare the samefor all learnersandthey are expected to be demonstrated
independently. The examples provided demonstrate how the verbiage has changed over time
and focus on expectations for student learning outcomes. Specificityin the expectation for
studentlearningis the key, and notspecificity ofthe percent ofstudents who will achieve
proficiency and notthe percentof contentthey will demonstrate. One hundred percentofall
students learning and achieving proficiency demonstrated independently is the intention of
the standards.

Domains of Learning

One way ofviewing learning exists in the concepts ofthree domains: the cognitive,affective, and
psychomotor. Within each domain are classification systems ranking instructional objectives in
a hierarchical structure from lowest to highestlevel. The iinstructional i i nd instructional
objectives may be specified forthree domains of learning, the cognitive, the affective, and the
psychomotor, as applicable

COGNITIVE DOMAIN. Speaking for a committeeofcollege and university examiners, Benjamin S.

Bloom (Bloom,et al., 1956) definedthe cognitive domain as including objectives that “deal with
the recall or recognition of knowledge andthe developmentofintellectualabilities andskills” (p.
7). Cognitive learning, which involves the mental processes, ranges from memorization to
thinking and problemsolving.

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN. David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia (1964)
defined the affective domain as including objectives that “emphasize a feeling tone, an
emotion, ora degree of acceptanceor rejection” (p. 7)
PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN. Robert J. Armstrong and colleagues (Armstong,et al., 1970.p. 22)
definedthe psychomotor domain as including behaviors that “place primary emphasis on
neuromuscular or physical skills and involvedifferentdegrees of physical dexterity” (p. 22).
Sometimes referred to as perceptual-motorskills, psychomotor learnings include bodily
movements and muscular coordination. Ordinarily, schooldistricts assumeresponsibility for
student achievementin allthree broad areas. However, the one measured in an official
manneris the cognitive. Except for work by people such as Rousseau, Froebel, Pestalozzi, and
Neill (Summerhill School, England), most of the world focuses on the cognitive domain.
Although strong preferences exist both within and outsidethe profession forstressing cognitive
learning, you may encourage each teacherto identify and write instructional goals and
objectives in all three domains, making allowancesfor the nature of the subject matter. For
example, using perceptual motor experiences (e.g., movement,role play) can a cognitive
standards and learning targets. The same example can be applied to the affective domain as a
student’s self-efficacyisrelated to achievement (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). Instructional
leaders who encourage teachersto develop a student’s beliefin himself to be successful
through self-regulation and metacognition will have addressed the domain in a positive
manner. In sum, there is a social cognitive approach to consider; a interact (Valentine, Du Bois,
& Cooper, 2004). sist learnersin achieving fective, cognitive, and environmental factors

Normally, the domainsoverlap; each possesses elements of the other, even when one is
obviously dominant. Thus,itis often difficult to categorize learning as falling precisely into one
domain. Many learnings will obviously fall into single categories. If you discount the bitof
affective pleasure a student mayfeel in knowing the right answer, the formula forfindingthe
area of a triangle (1/2 base X height) is pretty much a cognitive experience. Doingsit ups, a
psychomotorexercise, requiresvery little cognition and may evokeeither a positive or negative
affective response. Faith in other humanbeings chomotor, unless specification is provided of a
demonstration through observed action. s primarily an affective goal,

The knowledge and skills required for namingthe first president of the United States are at a
decidedly lowerlevel of thinking than those for each ofthe subsequent objectives. Each
succeeding itemprogressively requireshigher level and more complex thinking. This is an
example of developing learning targetsin a hierarchyoflearning outcomes from lowest to
highest. Considerthe following illustrations from the affective domain. The student will listen
attentively while others expresstheir points of view. The student will answera call for
volunteers to plant treesin a public park. Thestudent will express appreciation for the
contributions ofethnic groups other than his or her own to the development ofour country.
The student will abide by set of legal and ethical standards. Aswith examples in the cognitive
domain, eachobjective is progressively more substantive than the preceding one. Finally,
examine a set of objectives from the psychomotor domain. The student will identify a
woolenfabric byits feel. Thestudentwill demonstrate how to hold thereins of a cantering horse.
The student will imitate a right-about-face movement. The student will mix a batch of mortar
and water. Thestudentwill use an Excel program. The student will create an original game
requiring physical movements.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS Cognitive Classificationtion Systems There are several systemsfor

classifying educationalinstructional objectives. The use of a classificationsystem enables
teachers to distinguish amonglevelsofthinking and cognitive complexity. Distinguishing
amongthelevels and knowing the student workevidence that aligns with the levels,is essential
for instructional plans to align with the standard orcurriculum objective. Briefly examine four
ofthese systemsin the passagesthat follow

THE BLOOM TAXONOMY. Bloom,et al., (1956) and associates, in the mid-twentieth century,
developed an extensive taxonomy for classifying educational objectives in the cognitive
domain. Ofall classification systems, the Bloom taxonomy of the cognitive domain is perhaps
the best known andhistorically the most widely followed.

Bloom,et al., (1956) classified cognitive learnings intosix majorcategories: knowledge,

comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. You can see simple examples
and the level of thinking.

* Knowledgelevel. The student will namethefirst

* Comprehensionlevel. The student will read Was marize the major point

* Applicationlevel. The studentwill show how atleast three of Washington's ideas apply or do
not apply today. pital ofthe United States. ington's first inaugural address and sum-

Analysis level. The student will analyze Washington's military tactics at the Battle of Yorktown.
+ Synthesis level. From variousprint and nonprint sources students will determine the three
mostsalient points.

+ Evaluation level. The student will evaluate Washington’s military leadership based upon the
criteria ofsuccessful military strategies,loyalty ofsoldiers, and alignmentof the soldiers goals
with his own.

This taxonomy shows objectives as classified in a hierarchical fashion from the lowest
(knowledge)to the highest (evaluation). A central premise of professional educatorsis that the
higherlevels oflearning should be stressed. The ability to think, for example, is fostered not
through low level recall of knowledgealone but through application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation.

THE ANDERSON-KRATHWOHL TAXONOMY. Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl, editors,

with six contributors published a revision of Bloom's taxonomy in 2001. They saw changes in
education brought about by changes in society as creating the need for a revision of the Bloom
taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. xxii). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) presented a
taxonomytable with a Knowledge Dimension consisting offour typesof knowledge and a
Cognitive Process Dimension consisting ofsix categories, each of which is divided into cognitive
processes. The revision deleted synthesis, and added creation above evaluation. Creation is
considered as a synthesis that is a newly organized body ofinformation. For many educators
the synthesis as Bloom originally wrote it, remainshelpful to consider while adding the creation
of new knowledge. THE MARZANO-KENDALL TAXONOMY. In a revision of Robert J. Marzanos
2001 Designing a NewTaxonomyofEducational Objectives, Robert J. Marzano and John S.
Kendall offered in 2007 anew taxonomy that combinessix levels of processing consisting of
three systemsofthinking with three domainsof knowledge (pp. xi, 35-3). In their discussion of
three systemsofthinking they described three types of memory (2007, pp. 35-36). Marzano and
Kendall refrained from using degreesof difficulty to distinguish the various levelsin creating
their taxonomy (2007, p. 10). WEBB'S DEPTH-OF-KNOWLEDGE (DOK). In researching ways to
align assessment,curriculum, and standards, Norman L. Webb in 1997 proposed a classification
system that has become known as Webb's Depth-of-Knowledge (DOK) (Webb,2009).
Specifying four levels of processes, none of which is dependent upon attainmentofother levels,
Webb created a systeminthe field of mathematics that appeared in 1999. Sinceits appearance,
DOK,with help from content-area experts in other fields and the CCSSO, has spread toother
disciplines. Allthe taxonomies noted were based on the originalorrevised work of Bloom et al.,
(1956). These and other systems of thinking, such as Art Costa's, are included in many
curriculum resources. As an example, Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID),an
instructional approach for encouraging high level thinking and achievement,usesthe Costa
approach (www. artcostacentre.com/). Becoming familiar with these and other systems is
helpful in developing deeper understanding andin creating explicit instruction aligned with the
target standard. Of the three domains, objectives in the cognitive domain are the easiest to
identify and simplest to evaluate. They are drawn primarily from the subject matter and
areeasily measurable, once the academic languageis understood.

Affective Classification System

Shortly after the appearance of the cognitive taxonomy, Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964)
developed a taxonomy of objectives in the affective domain, which consists of five major
categories. Theaffective examples given arc labeled with thesefive categories.

« Receiving (attending). The student will listen while others express their points of view.

+ Responding. The student will answer a call forvolunteersto plant a treein a public park.

* Valuing. The student will express appreciation for the contributions ofethnic groupsother
thanhis or her own to the developmentof our country.

* Organization. The student will choose nutritious food overjunk food.

+ Characterization byvalue or value complex. The student will habitually abide by a set of legal
and ethicalstandards. (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) The affective domain posesa difficult
problem foreducators. Historically, parents and educators have viewed the school’s primary
mission as cognitive learning. Affective learning has typically held a lesserposition. As
mentioned elsewhere in thistext, the affective domain is still not accepted by some educators
and parents asa legitimate focusofthe school. On the other hand, there are educators who
feelthataffective outcomes are more importantto the individual and society than other
outcomes. The perceptual psychologist Arthur W. Combs (1962) stated thecase for affective
education,tying it to the developmentof adequate personalities. For many generations
education has done an excellent job of imparting information. . Our greatest failuresare those
connected with the problemsofhelping people to behave differently as a result of the
information we have provided them. . . . Adequate persons are, among other factors, the
product of strong values. The implication seems to be clear, then, that educators must be
interested in and concerned with values. Unfortunately. this is not the case in many schools
and classrooms today. The emphasis too often on the narrowlyscientific and impersonally
objective. . . . Education must be concerned with the values, beliefs, convictions, and doubts of
students. These realities as perceived by an individual are just as important, if not more so, as
the so-called objective facts. (Combs, 1962, р. 200) Benjamin Bloom, Thomas Hastings, and
George F. Madaus (1971) attested to the neglect of instructionforaffective learning whenthey
said: Throughoutthe years American education has maintained that among its most important
ideals is the development of suchattributesas interests, desirable attitudes, appreciation,
values, commitment, and will power. … the typesof outcomes which in fact receive the highest
priorities in our schools, to the detrimentofthese affective goals, are verbal-conceptual in
nature. (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 225)

Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus(1971) identified several reasons for the neglect of affective
learning. Our system ofeducation is geared to producing people who can deal with the words,
concepts, and mathematical orscientific symbols so necessary for success in our technological
society (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971 p. 225). Standardized tests used by the schools . . .
laystress on intellectualtasks (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 226). Characteristicsofthis
kind, unlike achievement competencies, are a private rather than a public matter (Bloom,
Hastings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 227).

If affective learnings should be taught then identification of commonly agreed upon affective
curriculum objectives and instructional objectives is an essential task for the curriculum
planner. Affective curriculum and instructional objectives are both difficult to identify and
extremely difficult to measure. These difficulties constitute another reason why teacherstend
to shy away from the affective domain.

PsychomotorClassification Systems The development and useof a classification system in the

psychomotor domain have not been given as much emphasis as in the cognitive and affective
domains. Classification systems of the psychomotor domain do exist, but they seem notto be
as widely known as those of the other two domains. The examples from the psychomotor
domain given earlier follow the classification system developed by Elizabeth Jane Simpson
(1972, pp.43-56). Following are her taxonomy examplesandtheir categories.

* Perception. The student will identify a woolenfabric by its feel. * Set. The student will
demonstrate how to hold the reins of a horse when cantering.

* Guidedresponse. The student will imitate a right-about-face movement.

« Mechanism. The student will mix a batch of mortar and water.

+ Complex overt response. The student will operate a DVR recorder. Adaptation. The student
will arrange an attractive bulletin board display. Origination. The student will create an original
game requiring physical movements. (Simpson, 1972, 43-56)

Anita J. Harrow (1972) provideda clarifying description for each of the categoriesofthe Simpson
taxonomy. She identified perception as interpreting, set as preparing, guided response as
learning, mechanism as habituating, complex overt response as performing, adaptation as
modifying, and origination as creating (Harrow 1972, p. 27). Harrow (1972) proposed her own
taxonomyfor classifying movement behaviorsoflearnersthatconsists of the following six
classification levels.

1.00 Reflex Movements

1.10 Segmental Reflexes

1.20 Intersegmental Reflexes

1.30 Suprasegmental Reflexes

2.00 Basic-Fundamental Movements

2.10 Locomotor Movements

2.20 Non-Locomotor Movements

2.30 Manipulative Movements

3.00 Perceptual Abilities

3.10 Kinesthetic rimination

3.20Visual Discrimination

3.30 Auditory Discrimination

3.40Tactile Discrimination

3.50 Coordinated Abilities

4.00 Physical Abilities

4.10 Endurance
4.20Strength

4.30 Flexibility

4.40 Agility

5.00 Skilled Movements

5.10 Simple Adaptive Skill 5.20 Computed Adaptive Skill 5.30 Complex Adaptive Skill 6.00 Non-
Discursive Communication 6.10 Expressive Movement 6.20 Interpretive Movement. (Harrow,
1972, pp. 1-2) Classification systemsin the three domains serve as guidelines that can lead to
more effective instruction. Theydirectattentiontothe three major domainsoflearning and to the
subdivisionsofeach.

WRITING INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Writinginstructional goals and instructional objectives is simple and should be approached with
basic expectations. Instructional goals are the big ideas, often referred to as essential
questions which are not measurable. An instructional goal may serve the purpose of pointing
outthe direction that leads to instructional objectives. For example, the instructional goal,
“students will understand the energy needs throughout the world, or essential question “how
can understanding the world’s energy needsand resourceshelp us in planning for them?” could
lead to a multitude of instructionalobjectives. Examples of instructional objectives may be,
“the studentwill identify three sourcesofenergy that are alternativesto fossil fuels,” and “the
student will propose three ways Americans can conserve energy, supported by textual
evidence.” An instructional goal may be written in rather broad, imprecise terms. On the other
hand, in someschooldistricts instructional goals may notbe stated as suggestedin this text and
may be stated simplyas a topic. An exampleof a topic may be, The Organized Labor Movement.
Implied in this topicis the instructional goal, “Students will understand the organized labor
movement.” Though variations in style of formulating instructional goals and instructional
objectives are certainly possible, you may see them written with “The student. . .” (in the
singular)to (a) signal the meaning “each student” and (b) help distinguish instructional goals
and objectives from curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. Curriculum goals and
curriculum objectives may begin with “Students . (in the plural) to convey the meaning
“students in general” or “groups ofstudents.” Although it is preferable for all plans to be
committed to writing, it is possible to keep the instructional goals in mind and movedirectly to
the writing ofinstructional objectives or learning targets. There are principals or schooldistrict
leaders whorequire that the curriculum objective orstandard, instructional goal or essential
question, and instructional objective or

Three Elements of an Instructional Objective or Learning Target Mager (1975) recommended

that three elements or components be includedin an instructional objective:

* the behavior expected ofthe student;

* the conditions under which the behavioris to be demonstrated; and

* the degree of mastery required.

Since the time of Mager, the development of instructional objectives and learning targets has
progressed to focusing on proficiency and not a percent of mastery or proficiency. Therefore,
you may only be asked to write the observable behavior expected andthe student learning
outcome. A brief explanation followsrelated to developing the instructional objectives.

SPECIFYING BEHAVIOR AND LEARNING OUTCOMES.

When specifying behavior choose as often as possible verbsthatare subject to measurement

and observation, and the studentlearning outcomeexpected. The word “understand,” although
a verb,is generally vague in an instructional objective becauseitis neither measurable nor
observable. Consider, “Thestudent will understand his orherrights underthe first 10
amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”Ifthis instructional objective remains as written, the
teacher will need to clarify the expectation for demonstrating understanding orthecriteria for
success. By changing the verb understand to a performance-oriented verb, you can create an
instructional objective that is measurable, such as “The student will write a two-sentence
summary representing each of the first 10 amendmentsto the U.S. Constitution.” Note thatthe
student learning outcome or evidence ofprogress towards mastery is the two-sentence
summary for each amendment. This instructional objective or learning target can be raised
from the comprehension level to the evaluation level by modifying the statement, “The
student will composea five-paragraph essay that addresses the rights in thefirst 10
amendmentsto the U.S. Constitution and will evaluate the importance of each right today,
based on the criteria of essential, desirable, or notrelevant.” The instructional objective or
learning target, therefore, includes the studentlearning outcome. It is helpfulifthe outcomeis
student work evidence and can inform instructional decisions that follow the particular
learning task. Ifthe outcomeis not student work evidence, then it will be important that the
teacher is clear with students on whatacceptable evidence of mastery looksor soundslike.
Whatis thecriteria for being successful onthisinstructional objective/learning target?

SPECIFYING CONDITIONS.

The condition under which the learner demonstrates the behavior may be specified,if
necessary. In the instructional objective, “Givena list of needsofthis community, the student
will rank them in orderofpriority.” “Givena list of needsofthis community” is the condition
under which the behavioris performed. It isapart ofthe objective. The condition may also
indicate the focus of the curriculum objective, such as comprehending informationaltext
versus literary text in this example: students will describe how text featuresaid in
comprehension of informational text. The instructional objective may be in the passage as in:
select three text features that aided your comprehension and describe how they helped.
SPECIFYING THE CRITERION.

Theinstructional objective or learning target should include the accepetable criterion of

masterry. Hattie (2009) refers to this criterion as success criteria which iststhe teacher in being
clear on the expected specific learning outcome and provides speciicity to the students, ifthe
teacher communicatesthe success criteria (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). For example, a
French teacher might write the statement, “The student will translate the following
sentences.” This statement is too broad and does not assist the teacher norstudent with
specificity. A better statement would be, “Translateat least five sentences from the French
passage to English.” In 1974, Robert H. Davis, Lawrence T. Alexander, and Stephen L. Yelon
listed six conditions and gave examplesofeach, which may be helpful today.

1. When mere OCCURRENCEofthe behavioris sufficient, describe the behavior. Example: The
knot will be tied loosely as in the photograph.

2. When ACCURACYis important, provide a statement of acceptable range or deviation.

Example: The answer mustbe correctto the nearest whole number.

③ If the number of ERRORSis important, state the number. Example: with a maximum of one
error.

4. If TIME or SPEEDis important, state the minimal level. Examples: within five seconds: five
units per minute.

5. If a KNOWN REFERENCEprovidesthe standard, state the reference. Example: Perform the

sequence ofstepsin the same orderas givenin the text.

6. Ifthe CONSEQUENCESofthe behavior are important, describe them or provide a model.

Example: Conductthe classso thatall students participate in the discussion. (Davis,et al., 1974,
pp. 39-40)

VALIDATING AND DETERMINING PRIORITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Instructional goals and instructional objectives should be validated and put in order ofpriority.
Teachersshould know whether the instructional goals and instructionalobjectivesare
appropriate and which are the more important. In practice, it is far simplerto validate and rank
instructional goals and instructional objectives than curriculum goals and curriculum
objectives. Instructional goals and instructional objectivesare not normally submitted with any
regularity to external groupsforthis process, but may be prioritized with teachers teaching the
same subject or grade level and with administrators. Validation of thepriority will be
dependent upon student progress towards mastery ofthe standardsandthe instructional
objectives. To make a judgment on validity and to decide which are essential require a
foundation in the subject matter, student progress towards mastery, and in the methods for
teaching that subject matter. Far fewer persons need to be involved in validating and
establishing priorities of instructional goals and instructional objectives than is the case with
curriculum goals and objectives. Validating and ranking ofinstructional goals and objectives are
usually accomplished by referring tothe curriculum guides which reflect schooldistrict or school
student data, along with data and evidence of your students’ progress. The authors ofthese
curriculum resources and guides serve as the persons who validate and set priorities. This
method ofvalidating and ordering ofinstructional goals and instructional objectivesis the most
common. However,ifteachers and leaders step back, think, and ask about a logical
orderofinstruction, the sequence ofinstructional objectives will emerge just as it always has for
effective teachers. Teachers can also seek help in validating and ranking instructional goals and
instructional objectives from members oftheir instructional team, grade level, or department,
along with other knowledgeable faculty members, curriculum consultants, and supervisors.
Consultants and supervisors experienced in special fields should also be able to help decide
which instructional goals and instructional objectives are appropriateto the learners and which
ones should be stressed, due to importanceas prerequisites for later learning or that they are
more heavily tested. Finally,teachers may seek advice from acknowledged experts in the
subjectarea outside the school district, as well as from specialists in other schooldistricts or in
higher education institutions.

Summary

Instructional goals can be written as statements or as essential questions. Instructional

objectives may be called learning targets and, like essential questions and instructional goals,
are directly related to the previously specified curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or
standards. Instructional goals provide direction for specifying instructional objectives or
learning targets. The way these are verbalized today has changed from the historical
expectation. The implementation of standards with the expectation ofproficiency of all
students requiresa different approach. Learning outcomes may be identified in three major
domains: the cognitive,the affective, and the psychomotor. The cognitive domain the world of
the intellect; the affective, the locale of emotions, beliefs, values, and attitudes; and the
psychomotor, the territory of perceptual-motor skills.

Classification systems are useful in revealing the types oflearning encompassed in each
domain. Systemscan provide guidance in designing instructional plans that meet the intended
learning outcomes. Instructional goals are statements written in nonbehavioral terms without
criteria of mastery. Apart from outcomesin theaffective domain, instructional objectives or
learning targets should be written in measurable and observable terms with success criteria.
Instructional objectives should consist of three components: the behavior that learners will
demonstrate, the conditions under which the behavioris to be demonstrated, and the criterion
to show proficiency.

Application

1. Examine an instructional plan of a colleague or someone you supervise. To what extentare

the instructional goals or essential questions clearly aligned with the related standard?
Likewise, to whatextentis the instructional objective or learning targetwritten similarly to the
examples provided? How would you rewrite these artifacts?
2. Investigate the expectations for specificity in your context. Are the learning targets written
forprincipals, teachers, or students? Are they specific enough that the student work evidence
expected is clear so that a student can work towards it?

Inquiry and Reflection

1. Think about the classificatio system that guides the writing of instructional goals, essential
questions, instructional objectives, and/or learningtargets in your context. How deeply do
those whocreate instructional plans understand these systems and accurately
implementthem? Asan instructional leader, develop a strategy for enhancing
understandingand fidelity in use.

2. Evaluate which of the classification systems best for improving student learning outcomes.
How would you facilitate the use ofclassification systems to guideinstructional planning at the
level ofrigor needed to improve student learning outcome: