Selecting and framing objectives is one of the most difficult tasks for educators and, incidentally, for those developing social interventions and programme proposals (see Budgeting and Financing Voter Education Programmes).
As a result, there is even a school of thought that considers setting the objective to be a somewhat arrogant exercise and preferably left to the learners themselves. However, adult learners engaging in dialogue with an educator require an understanding of the intentions of the educator and of their own expectations. An explicit statement of goals or objectives can achieve this. [1]
There may even be opportunities in small group learning events when these objectives can be set jointly. But national education programmes do not have that opportunity, and educators themselves must set objectives based on their best understanding of the educational needs of the target constituency.
Framing Objective Statements
There are ways educators writing objectives can remind themselves of the criteria needed to be useful to the planning and educational exercise. There are a number of acronyms used in the process. Marie-Louise Strom of IDASA in South Africa has developed an acronym which is particularly useful: WARM. WARM objectives are those that are Worthwhile, Action-oriented, Realistic, and Measurable. They also are warm, or passionate, as adult education should be reminded of its greater purpose to empower and enable.
Worthwhile
Educational objectives need to be of significance to the learner. They should be based on relevant educational needs and important life opportunities. Individuals framing objectives have to remind themselves that significance is based on what the potential learners consider important rather than what the educator considers important. When it is possible to engage the target constituency, or component parts of it (see Message Development), a dialogue can ensue about what is significant.
The word worthwhile suggests that whatever the significance, it is worth must be apparent to all at the outset.
Action-oriented
Objectives should be framed in terms of changes in behaviour, knowledge, or attitudes. Even cognitive objectives should be framed to describe activity after the educational intervention rather than the process during the event. The purpose of all objectives, whether educational or programmatic, is to describe a set of predictable and probable outputs from the processes and inputs made during the intervention.
While these processes and inputs may require specification, they are not objectives.
Realistic
Objectives have to come to terms with the limitations imposed upon learning by time, methodology, and other available resources. Framing objectives to make them realistic requires a number of iterations. Often, educators will set objectives that are worthwhile and action-oriented only to find that they cannot be achieved in the time available, or that the educational strategies available are not suitable or pliable enough to achieve these objectives.
Realism goes hand in hand with the next measure because it keeps educators honest. It is not enough to set objectives and then say they could have been achieved if only there was enough time, or if only the field educator was more skilled, or the learners more amenable. Such constraints usually cannot be changed, and the planning team needs to come to terms with this during the planning stage.
Measurable
The achievement of objectives must be capable of measurement. How the outcomes are measured requires consideration of sets of indicators that may well have to be developed at the same time as the objectives. But without objectives framed in ways that allow measurement, assessment of learning and evaluation of educational impact are impossible.
While programme planners are most concerned with general assessment of educational impact, learners require less grandiose but equally urgent assessment. They want to be able to know whether they can trust what they have learned and use it in their daily lives or to move on to further learning experiences.
So, the setting of objectives as a first step in determining the educational programme is absolutely essential. This stage in the planning process is likely to be the most intensive, and if a team is doing the planning, the most frustrating. Getting it right provides the sort of certainty and direction that stands an educational programme in good stead. Getting it wrong, or ignoring it in the hope that the process will make the endpoints clearer is a recipe for wandering in the thickets of confusion and wasting much valuable time later in the programme.
Notes:
[1] Because of the necessity to explain a taxonomy of objectives - each one leading to another set, and each of these requiring further definition - educators and planners have developed at different times and in different places their own ranking of the various words available in English. Over time there has come some commonality of approach but there are still differences and it is important that those involved in planning realise that they are creating these taxonomies for their own convenience. In countries where English is not the first language, training of educators can be severely hampered by confusion and outright conflict over whether something is a purpose, aim, objective, outcome or goal. Which term is the larger and which the smaller and more concise is entirely a matter of habit, local convention and choice.
