In this practice briefing, Jonathan Halls demystifies learning objectives, showing how concrete, measurable statements make training far more effective. It explores the three‑element structure of effective objectives and discusses how learning objectives support training and workplace performance.
What Are Learning Objective?
Ever been in a meeting about training where everyone uses familiar terms — and then you discover they all meant something different? Learning objectives is one of those terms. And that confusion means many people never experience how useful they are for designing training and supporting talent development. So, what is a learning objective?
A learning objective is a concrete, measurable statement describing the task a learner will be able to perform after an intentionally directed learning experience. It also describes the conditions under which the task is performed and the standard to which it must be done. In training and talent development, this task is always something performed in the workplace.
Because learning objectives are concrete, observable, and measurable, they’re essential for designing learning, guiding facilitation, and assessing performance.
It’s important to remember that learning objectives do not describe content the trainer covers in class, nor their teaching strategy. And they are not broad goals or aspirations; rather, they describe the task and level of performance that is expected on the job. To efficiently write objectives, it helps to adopt the Do Mindset. That is, think in terms of what learners will be able to do after learning, not what they will know.
The Three Elements of a Learning Objective
Educational psychologist, Robert Mager, is the pioneer who set up the way most people write objectives. Considered the gold standard because it focuses on real workplace tasks, his framework suggests objectives should have three elements, each of which answers a key question about the task.
- What action must the learner take to perform the task? (The action element).
- Under what conditions is the task performed? (The condition element).
- To what standard must it be performed? (The standard element).
These three elements — action, condition, and standard — form the backbone of a clear, measurable objective.
Examples:
- Give constructive feedback to a subordinate (action) over the phone (condition) using the ACME Feedback model (standard).
- Assemble a three‑shelf storage unit (action) in a commercial warehouse (condition) according to the provided blueprint (standard).
Each element has guidelines to help instructional designers frame objectives that are genuinely useful to talent development professionals.
What a Good Learning Objective Does
When written well, a learning objective:
- Describes one task
- Uses concrete language
- Focuses on performance, not content
- Reflects the workplace, not the classroom
- Defines the standard so success is measurable
These qualities make objectives powerful tools for design, facilitation, coaching, and stakeholder alignment.
Terminal and Enabling Objectives
Every task comprises a set of subtasks. For example, to change a car tire, you need to park the car safely, jack it car up, loosen the lug nuts, and remove the wheel. Learning designers distinguish between the task and its subtasks using:
- Terminal Learning Objectives (TLOs): describe the boundary task such as changing the tire.
- Enabling Learning Objectives (ELOs): describe the subtasks someone must do to change the tire.
TLOs and ELOs are more common in military than corporate training, which is a shame because they help clarify scope, sequence, and design decisions.
What About SMART and ABCD Objectives?
Some organizations use SMART goals or the ABCD method to write learning objectives. Both can help beginners — for example, the ABCD model is easy to remember — but neither offers the precision needed to describe workplace tasks clearly.
- SMART goals were created by George T. Doran in 1981 for business planning, not to describe performance‑based tasks. And the words he originally used differ from versions used today. (For example, many people now say achievable, but Doran used assignable.)
- ABCD adds components (like “audience”) that aren’t always necessary and is questionable philosophically. And it adds the term degree, which is ambiguous.
There are several other reasons these models are less helpful for workplace learning objectives — I explore those in my book — but the short version is this: they don’t match the clarity and utility of Mager’s model.
Mager’s three-element model — action, condition, standard — remains the simplest and sharpest tool for describing what people will actually do on the job. While I have used updated terminology, (action instead of behavior, and standard instead of criterion) the meaning remains the same.
Objectives, Competencies, and Terminology
Organizations use a range of terms for learning objectives — instructional objectives, behavioral objectives, performance objectives, and more. The terminology varies, but the intent is the same: to describe what people will be able to do after learning.
Some terms allow interchangeable use, but others do not. In particular, it’s important to distinguish learning objectives from competencies:
- Competencies describe broad clusters of knowledge, skills, and behaviors.
- Learning objectives describe specific tasks someone will perform after a learning experience.
Competencies guide long-term development. Learning objectives guide design, facilitation, and evaluation.
Into Practice
When using learning objectives, avoid common misunderstandings. They do not describe content or pedagogy. They describe tasks people should be able to perform after a learning experience — and they do so in concrete, measurable terms.
Comments are closed.