CHAPTER 9

Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and

Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets

Learning Outcomes PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION

After studying this chapter, With the curriculum decisions made, leaders are readyto address
you should be ableto: instruction. Historically, instructional decision making has been the
1. Explain the relationships responsibility of individualteachers. However, as the expectation for
among curriculum instruction has become standardsand evidence based with account-
goals or the overarch- ability for student learning outcomes, planning has become more ofa
ing ideas and curriculum shared responsibility. It may be shared among the school district cur-
objectivesor standards, riculum and instructional specialists, the school instructional leaders
and instructional goals or and administrators, and the school instructional personnel including
essential questions,and instructional coaches and classroom teachers.
instructional objectives or Depending uponthe schooldistrict size and resources, curricu-
learning targets. lum guides mayinclude instructional plans, sequence ofstandards to
2. Distinguish between be learned, pacing guides, and recommended or required resources
instructional goals or as reviewed in Chapter 8. Curriculum guides that have instructional
essential questions and plans may includethe standard, instructional goal oressential question
instructional objectives or instructional objective or learning target, and evidence based teacher
learningtargets. instructional practices to promote student proficiency on the target
standard. Even with these extended supports it is alwaysa good idea
3. Write instructional goals
for collaborative teamsofteachers to work together with instructional
or essential questions and coaches and administrators to make the instructional plan explicitly
instructional objectives
understood, agreed upon, and implemented in a consistent manner
or learning targetsfor
acrossthose with the sameresponsibility.
standards. In independentschools, charter schools, and education organiza-
tions 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 whenthere less support, the samedecisions needto 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 your state's
version ofstandards. The essential questionis the big idea suchas,
“What makesa goodfriend?” or “Howdo organisms grow?” or “How
178
 Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectivesor LearningTargets 179

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 outcomesthat 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 manipula-
tives 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.
Planning for instruction includes specifying instructional goals or essential ques-
tions and instructional objectives or learning targets (this chapter), selecting evidence based
approaches(Chapter 11), and determining the evaluation ofinstruction (Chapter 12).
Toput the next taskin 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 on, or vision).
Identify curriculum objectives or standards.
* Determine needs ofstudents in the context by subject.
Plan to organize orreorganize 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 objectives or standards are derived. In turn, the curriculum objec-
tives or standardsserve as sourcesforthe instructional goals or essential questions andinstructional
objectives orlearning targets. Aimsare stated by prominent individuals and groups for national,
and sometimes even 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 speci-
fied by teamsof teachers, 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 basedinstructional units, and other similar resources.
180 Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

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 techno-
logicalsociety in the hierarchy shown in Table 9.1.

TABLE 9.1 Illustration of the Hierarchy of Outcomes

* Aim. Students will develop knowledge andskills necessary forlivingin an information and
technological society.
* Curriculum goal or overarchingidea. Students will use various print and nonprint resources
to gather information, 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 canprint and nonprint resourcesbe usedeffectively andin
a complementary manner?
« Instructional objective orlearning target. Student will prioritize nonprint resources to be
investigatedto solve one localissue.

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 movement and 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 teacheractions in contrastto student out-
comes. This difference in the measure ofsuccess, from teacher behavior to studentlearning, is an
important change from Tyler's time.
1. Thingsthat the instructor will do.Tyler gave as examples presentthe theory ofevolu-
i ‘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:
 Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 181
3. Generalized patterns of behaviorfail to indicate more specifically the content to which the
behavior applies. Tyler identified illustrations of this 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
orarea oflife 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
+ makessequencingeasier.
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 onceit 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 ofthe objectives
to which they are expected to aspire; he must convince them of the relevance ofthis objec-
tive 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 evenifall programs could be set up on the basis ofbehavioral objectives
and evenifstrict training paradigms could be established to meetthe objectives, who could
argue that such a program would be other than tedious and ultimately stultifying. (Raths,
1971, p.715)
182 Part IV * Curriculum Implementation

Among those who opposed the use of behavioral objectives were reconceptualists who
viewed behavioral objectives as too mechanistic because they focus on observable behavior and
ignore subjective behavior (McNeil, 2006). Some authorities faulted the specification ofinstruc-
tional objectives as too narrow, too sequential, and too focused on specific, and inappropriate,
content. They noted the debt of instructional objectivesto 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 activi-
ties 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 instruc-
tional 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 otherissues in 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 betterif they pertain to the particular instructionaltask.
Objectives are more effective with certain kindsofinstructionthan with others and are use-
ful in accomplishing learning at higherlevelsof the 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 common to be used withteachersfill-
ing in the blanksfor the students and contentthey were teaching. Given the
the student will in minutes with a score of
* Downplaying ive 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 broader but still-measurable behavioral objec-
tives. 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).
 Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectivesor LearningTargets 183

Asspecial education cameto practice the use of measurable instructional objectivesthey

were implementedfor each identified student. A reasoned approach in the practice ofidentify-
ing 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
plansstate 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 other professionals 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 estab-
lish 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 levels ofthinking and cognitive complexity indicated bythe standard or
curriculum objective; and
+ follow a few simplerules of writing.
Educators should consider the mission and vision of all students being successful aca-
demically 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 limitedto cognitive language and mathemati-
calskills, often interpreted in terms ofa single intelligence. On the other hand, test results gen-
erate differential aptitudes in such areasas languageusage, verbal reasoning, numeracy,spatial
relations, abstract reasoning, and memory (Checkley, 1997). Howard Gardner conceptualized
the existence ofsevenintelligences: 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 sel vity to spiritual and philosophical questionsabout humankind's
existence (Wilson, nd).
184 Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

The concept of intelligences, in the plural, guides teachers to design instruction forall learn-
ersto 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
relateto curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or 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
wouldbe 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 percentof proficiency nor a
percent ofstudents who are expected to be successful. While the curriculum objective was measur-
able, 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 of reading 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 writea three-
sentence summary of how two text featuresaided comprehension.
Before NCLB objectives may have beenwritten as minimal competenciesand the expecta-
tion 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 student learning is the key, and notspecificity ofthe percent ofstudents who will achieve pro-
ficiency and notthe percent of content they will demonstrate. One hundred percentofall students
learningand achieving proficiency demonstrated independently is the intention ofthe 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 i i nd instructional objectives
may be specified forthree domains of learning, the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor,
as applicable.

Guidelin
 Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectivesor LearningTargets 185

COGNITIVE DOMAIN. Speaking for a committeeof college and university examiners, Benjamin
S. Bloom (Bloom,et al., 1956) definedthe cognitive domain as including objectivesthat “deal
with the recall or recognition of knowledge andthe developmentof intellectualabilities 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 asincluding behaviors that “place primary emphasis on
neuromuscular or physical skills and involvedifferentdegrees of physical dexterity” (p. 22).
Sometimes referred to as perceptual-motorskills, psychomotor learningsinclude bodily move-
ments and muscular coordination.
Ordinarily, school districts assumeresponsibility for student achievementin all three broad
areas. However, the one measured in an official manner is 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 cogni-
tive learning, you may encourage each teacherto identify and write instructional goals and objec-
tives 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 sist learnersin achieving
cognitive standards and learning targets. The same example can be applied to the affective domain
as a student’s self-efficacy is related 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 fective, cognitive, and environmental factors
interact (Valentine, Du Bois, & Cooper, 2004).
Normally, the domainsoverlap; each possesses elements of the other, even when one is obvi-
ously dominant. Thus,itis oftendifficult to categorize learning asfalling precisely into one domain.
Many learnings will obviously fall into single categories. If you discount the bitof affective plea-
sure 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 s primarily an affective goal, secondarily cognitive, and usually not psy-
chomotor, unless specification is provided of a demonstration through observed action.
The widely practiced classification ofobjectives into three domains may be helpful in
supporting teaches they create instructional plans. Instructional goals and instructional objec-
tives should be identified to be aligned with the target standard orthe curriculum objective. It is
obvious that some learnings are more substantive, complex, and important than others. Note, for
example, the following learningtargets, all in the cognitive domain,to review thedifferences in
thinking and complexity.
* The student will namethefirst president ofthe United States.
* The student will compare and contrast Washington's first inaugural addre: ind that of a
twenty-first century U.S. president by their explicitly stated and inferred goals.
186 Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

+ Analyze which of Washington’s goals and ideas apply or do not apply today.
* The student will evaluate Washington's role at the Continental Congress based upon criteria
of demonstration of commitment and leadership.
The knowledge and skills required for namingthe first president of the United States are
at a decidedly lowerlevel of thinking than those for eachof the subsequent objectives. Each suc-
ceeding itemprogressively requireshigher level and more complex thinking. This is an example
of developing learning targetsin a hierarchyof learning 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.
Thestudent will 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 Clas: tion Systems
There are several systemsfor classifying educationalinstructional objectives. The use of a clas-
sificationsystem enables teachers to distinguish amonglevelsof thinking and cognitive complex-
ity. 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 objectivesin the cognitive domain.
Ofall classification systems, the Bloom taxonomy ofthe cognitive domain is perhaps the best
known andhistorically the most widely followed.
Bloom,et al., (1956) classified cognitive learningsintosix majorcategories: knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. You can see simple examples
and the level of thinking.
* Knowledge level. The student will namethefirst pital ofthe United States.
* Comprehensionlevel. The student will read Was ington's first inaugural address and sum-
marize the major point
* Applicationlevel. The student will show how atleast three of Washington's ideas apply
or do not apply today.
 Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 187
* 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 sol-
diers 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
changesin 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 systemsof thinking with
three domainsof knowledge (pp. xi, 35-3). In their discussion of three systemsof thinking they
described three types of memory (2007, pp. 35-36). Marzano and Kendall refrained from using
degreesof difficulty to distinguish the variouslevelsin 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 systemin the field of math-
ematics that appeared in 1999. Sinceits appearance, DOK,with help from content-area experts
in other fields and the CCSSO, has spread toother disciplines.
All the taxonomies noted were based on the original orrevised 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.
188 Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

Affective Classification System

Shortly after the appearance of the cognitive taxonomy, Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964)
developed a taxonomy of objectivesin the affective domain, which consists of five major catego-
ries. 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 development of 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 domainis
still not accepted by some educators and parents asa legitimate focus ofthe school. On the other
hand, there are educators who feel thataffective outcomes are more important to the individual
and society than other outcomes.
The perceptual psychologist Arthur W. Combs (1962) stated thecase for affective educa-
tion,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 imper-
sonally 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, com-
mitment, and will power. … the typesof outcomes which in fact receive the highest priorities in
our schools, to the detrimentof these affective goals, are verbal-conceptualin nature. (Bloom,
Hastings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 225)
Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus(1971) identified several reasons for the neglect of ive
learning. Our system of education 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, Hast-
ings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 227).
If affective learnings should be taught then identification of commonly agreed upon affec-
tive curriculum objectives and instructional objectives is an essential task for the curriculum
 Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectivesor LearningTargets 189

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 asin 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 byits 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 ofthe 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 clas-
sification 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
190 Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

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. Theydirectattentionto the three major domainsoflearning and to the subdivisions ofeach.

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 direc-
tion 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 usin planning for them?” could lead to a multitude
of instructionalobjectives. Examples ofinstructional 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 theinstructional goalsin mind and movedirectly to the writing ofinstructional objectives
or learning targets. There are principals or schooldistrict leaders whorequire that the curricu-
lum objective orstandard, instructional goal or essential question, and instructional objective or

in moving toward proficiency. Therefore, it is

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 behavior is to be demonstrated; and
* the degree of mastery required.

vriting In:
 Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 191
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 student learn-
ing outcomeexpected. The word “understand,” although a verb,is generally vague in an instruc-
tional objective becauseit is 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 evalu-
ate the importance of each right today, based on the criteria of essential, desirable, or notrelevant.”
The instructional objective or learning target, therefore, includes the student learning outcome.
It is helpfulif the outcomeis student work evidence and can inform instructional decisions
that follow the particular learning task. If the 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 onthis instructional 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 needsof this com-
munity, the student will rank them in orderof priority.” “Givena list of needsofthis community”
is the condition under which the behavioris performed. It is a part 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
featuresthat aided your comprehension and describe how they helped.

SPECIFYING THE CRITERION. Theinstructional objective or learning target should include the
acceptable criterion of mas ry. Hattie (2009) refers to this criterion as success criteria which
a iststhe teacher in being clear on the expected specific learning outcome and provides speci-
icity 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 t the teacher norstudent with
specificity. A better statement would be, “Translateat least five sentences from the French pas-
sage to English.”
In 1974, Robert H. Davis, Lawrence T. Alexander, and Stephen L. Yelon listed six condi-
tions 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.
⑪
192 Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

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 ofsteps in the same orderas givenin the text.
6. If the 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)

TABLE 9.2 Behaviorally Oriented Verbs for the Domains of Learning

Cognitive Domain Bloom,et al., 1956)

Level of thinking Verbs

Knowledge identify, specify, state
Comprehension explain, restate, translate, trace
Application apply, solve, use, connect, relate
Analysis analyze, compare, contrast,illustrate
Synthesis (may be in Create) design, develop, plan, compose,compile
Evaluation assess, evaluate, judge, distinguish
Create(synthesize included) Compose, compile, design
Affective Domain (Krathwohl et al., 1964)
Level Verbs
Receiving accept, demonstrate awareness,listen
Responding comply with, engagein, volunteer
Valuing prefer, appreciate, show concern
Organization adhereto, defend
Characterization byvalue or value complex empathize, be ethical, modify behavior
Psychomotor Domain (Simpson, 1972)
Level Verbs
Perception distinguish, identify, select
Set assume a position, demonstrate, show
Guided response attempt,imitate, try
Mechanism make habitual, practice, repeat
Complex overt response carry out, operate, perform
Adaptation adapt, change, revise
Origination create, design,originate
Gronlund, N. (2000). Howtowrite anduse instructionalobjectives (Appendices B and C). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill.

vriting In:
 Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectivesor LearningTargets 193

Novice instructors sometimes ask how to decide on the criteria. If the curriculum objective
is a standard,there will be specifications that provide guidance in writing the learning target and
success criteria. If there are no specifications, then consult the curriculum guide. If neitherexist,
then teachers considerthetexts and expectationsfor results given by thestate, school district,
school, or education organization (e.g. International Baccalaureate, etc.). To the success criteria
component, Davis, Alexander, and Yelon (1974) added a stability component—thatis, the num-
ber of opportunities the student will be given and the numberof times he or she must succeed in
demonstrating the behavior (p. 41). This point is an important one, thatstudents should demon-
strate proficiency more than onetime, to be sure that their success is not accidental before they
aretested on the criteria.
Generally,instructional objectives or learning targets should consist ofat least three com-
ponents: (a) the behavior,(b) the conditions, and (c) the criterion. Studentlearning outcomes or
student work evidencealigns with the successcriteria.

VALIDATING AND DETERMINING PRIORITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Instructional goals and instructional objectivesshould 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 priori-
tized 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 teach-
ing 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 accom-
plished by referring tothe curriculum guides which reflect schooldistrict or school stu-
dent 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,if teachers 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 instruc-
tional goals and instructional objectives are appropriateto the learners and which ones should
be stressed, due to importanceas prerequisites for later learning orthat they are more heavily
tested. Finally, teachers may seek advice from acknowledged experts in the subject area outside
the school district, as well as from specialists in other school districts or in higher education
institutions.
194 Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

Summary
Instructional goals can be written as statements or Classification systems are useful in reveal-
as essential questions. Instructional objectives may ing the types oflearning encompassed in each
be called learning targets and, like essential ques- domain. Systemscan provide guidance in designing
tions and instructional goals, are directly related to instructional plans that meet the intended learning
the previously specified curriculum goals and cur- outcomes.
riculum objectives or standards. Instructional goals Instructional goals are statements written in
provide direction for specifying instructional objec- nonbehavioral terms without criteria of mastery.
tives or learning targets. The way these are verbalized Apart from outcomesin theaffective domain, instruc-
today has changed from the historical expectation. tional objectives or learning targets should be writ-
The implementation of standards with the expecta- ten in measurable and observable terms with success
tion ofproficiency of all students requiresa different criteria.
approach. Instructional objectives should consist of
Learning outcomes may be identified in three three components: the behavior that learners will
major domains: the cognitive, the affective, and the demonstrate, the conditions under which the behav-
psychomotor. The cognitive domain the world of ioris to be demonstrated, and the criterion to show
the intellect; the affective, the locale of emotions, proficiency.
beliefs, values, and attitudes; and the psychomotor,
the territory of perceptual-motor skills.

Application
1. Examine an instructional plan of a colleague or 2. Investigate the expectations for specificity in
someone you supervise. To what extentare the your context. Are the learning targets written
instructional goals or essential questions clearly forprincipals, teachers, or students? Are they
aligned with the related standard? Likewise, to specific enough that the student work evidence
whatextentis the instructional objective or learn- expected is clear so that a student can work
ing targetwritten similarly to the examples pro- towardsit?
vided? How would you rewrite these artifacts?

Inquiry and Reflection

1. Think about the cl ation system that 2. Evaluate which of the cla: ion systems
guides the writing of instructional goals, essen- best for improving student learning outcomes.
tial questions, instructional objectives, and/or How would you facilitate the use ofclassifica-
learningtargets in your context. How deeply do tion systemsto guideinstructional planning at
those whocreate instructional plans understand the level ofrigor needed to improve student
these systems and accurately implement them? learning outcome:
As an instructional leader, develop a strategy
for enhancing understandingand fidelity in use.