research into learning objectives

Teaching Commons Conference 2024

Join us for the Teaching Commons Conference 2024 –  Cultivating Connection. Friday, May 10.

Creating Learning Outcomes

Main navigation.

A learning outcome is a concise description of what students will learn and how that learning will be assessed. Having clearly articulated learning outcomes can make designing a course, assessing student learning progress, and facilitating learning activities easier and more effective. Learning outcomes can also help students regulate their learning and develop effective study strategies.

Defining the terms

Educational research uses a number of terms for this concept, including learning goals, student learning objectives, session outcomes, and more. 

In alignment with other Stanford resources, we will use learning outcomes as a general term for what students will learn and how that learning will be assessed. This includes both goals and objectives. We will use learning goals to describe general outcomes for an entire course or program. We will use learning objectives when discussing more focused outcomes for specific lessons or activities.

For example, a learning goal might be “By the end of the course, students will be able to develop coherent literary arguments.” 

Whereas a learning objective might be, “By the end of Week 5, students will be able to write a coherent thesis statement supported by at least two pieces of evidence.”

Learning outcomes benefit instructors

Learning outcomes can help instructors in a number of ways by:

• Providing a framework and rationale for making course design decisions about the sequence of topics and instruction, content selection, and so on.
• Communicating to students what they must do to make progress in learning in your course.
• Clarifying your intentions to the teaching team, course guests, and other colleagues.
• Providing a framework for transparent and equitable assessment of student learning. 
• Making outcomes concerning values and beliefs, such as dedication to discipline-specific values, more concrete and assessable.
• Making inclusion and belonging explicit and integral to the course design.

Learning outcomes benefit students 

Clearly, articulated learning outcomes can also help guide and support students in their own learning by:

• Clearly communicating the range of learning students will be expected to acquire and demonstrate.
• Helping learners concentrate on the areas that they need to develop to progress in the course.
• Helping learners monitor their own progress, reflect on the efficacy of their study strategies, and seek out support or better strategies. (See Promoting Student Metacognition for more on this topic.)

Choosing learning outcomes

When writing learning outcomes to represent the aims and practices of a course or even a discipline, consider:

• What is the big idea that you hope students will still retain from the course even years later?
• What are the most important concepts, ideas, methods, theories, approaches, and perspectives of your field that students should learn?
• What are the most important skills that students should develop and be able to apply in and after your course?
• What would students need to have mastered earlier in the course or program in order to make progress later or in subsequent courses?
• What skills and knowledge would students need if they were to pursue a career in this field or contribute to communities impacted by this field?
• What values, attitudes, and habits of mind and affect would students need if they are to pursue a career in this field or contribute to communities impacted by this field?
• How can the learning outcomes span a wide range of skills that serve students with differing levels of preparation?
• How can learning outcomes offer a range of assessment types to serve a diverse student population?

Use learning taxonomies to inform learning outcomes

Learning taxonomies describe how a learner’s understanding develops from simple to complex when learning different subjects or tasks. They are useful here for identifying any foundational skills or knowledge needed for more complex learning, and for matching observable behaviors to different types of learning.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model and includes three domains of learning: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. In this model, learning occurs hierarchically, as each skill builds on previous skills towards increasingly sophisticated learning. For example, in the cognitive domain, learning begins with remembering, then understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and lastly creating. 

Taxonomy of Significant Learning

The Taxonomy of Significant Learning is a non-hierarchical and integral model of learning. It describes learning as a meaningful, holistic, and integral network. This model has six intersecting domains: knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn. 

See our resource on Learning Taxonomies and Verbs for a summary of these two learning taxonomies.

How to write learning outcomes

Writing learning outcomes can be made easier by using the ABCD approach. This strategy identifies four key elements of an effective learning outcome:

Consider the following example: Students (audience) , will be able to label and describe (behavior) , given a diagram of the eye at the end of this lesson (condition) , all seven extraocular muscles, and at least two of their actions (degree) .

Audience 

Define who will achieve the outcome. Outcomes commonly include phrases such as “After completing this course, students will be able to...” or “After completing this activity, workshop participants will be able to...”

Keeping your audience in mind as you develop your learning outcomes helps ensure that they are relevant and centered on what learners must achieve. Make sure the learning outcome is focused on the student’s behavior, not the instructor’s. If the outcome describes an instructional activity or topic, then it is too focused on the instructor’s intentions and not the students.

Try to understand your audience so that you can better align your learning goals or objectives to meet their needs. While every group of students is different, certain generalizations about their prior knowledge, goals, motivation, and so on might be made based on course prerequisites, their year-level, or majors. 

Use action verbs to describe observable behavior that demonstrates mastery of the goal or objective. Depending on the skill, knowledge, or domain of the behavior, you might select a different action verb. Particularly for learning objectives which are more specific, avoid verbs that are vague or difficult to assess, such as “understand”, “appreciate”, or “know”.

The behavior usually completes the audience phrase “students will be able to…” with a specific action verb that learners can interpret without ambiguity. We recommend beginning learning goals with a phrase that makes it clear that students are expected to actively contribute to progressing towards a learning goal. For example, “through active engagement and completion of course activities, students will be able to…”

Example action verbs

Consider the following examples of verbs from different learning domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy . Generally speaking, items listed at the top under each domain are more suitable for advanced students, and items listed at the bottom are more suitable for novice or beginning students. Using verbs and associated skills from all three domains, regardless of your discipline area, can benefit students by diversifying the learning experience. 

For the cognitive domain:

• Create, investigate, design
• Evaluate, argue, support
• Analyze, compare, examine
• Solve, operate, demonstrate
• Describe, locate, translate
• Remember, define, duplicate, list

For the psychomotor domain:

• Invent, create, manage
• Articulate, construct, solve
• Complete, calibrate, control
• Build, perform, execute
• Copy, repeat, follow

For the affective domain:

• Internalize, propose, conclude
• Organize, systematize, integrate
• Justify, share, persuade
• Respond, contribute, cooperate
• Capture, pursue, consume

Often we develop broad goals first, then break them down into specific objectives. For example, if a goal is for learners to be able to compose an essay, break it down into several objectives, such as forming a clear thesis statement, coherently ordering points, following a salient argument, gathering and quoting evidence effectively, and so on.

State the conditions, if any, under which the behavior is to be performed. Consider the following conditions:

• Equipment or tools, such as using a laboratory device or a specified software application.
• Situation or environment, such as in a clinical setting, or during a performance.
• Materials or format, such as written text, a slide presentation, or using specified materials.

The level of specificity for conditions within an objective may vary and should be appropriate to the broader goals. If the conditions are implicit or understood as part of the classroom or assessment situation, it may not be necessary to state them. 

When articulating the conditions in learning outcomes, ensure that they are sensorily and financially accessible to all students.

Degree 

Degree states the standard or criterion for acceptable performance. The degree should be related to real-world expectations: what standard should the learner meet to be judged proficient? For example:

• With 90% accuracy
• Within 10 minutes
• Suitable for submission to an edited journal
• Obtain a valid solution
• In a 100-word paragraph

The specificity of the degree will vary. You might take into consideration professional standards, what a student would need to succeed in subsequent courses in a series, or what is required by you as the instructor to accurately assess learning when determining the degree. Where the degree is easy to measure (such as pass or fail) or accuracy is not required, it may be omitted.

Characteristics of effective learning outcomes

The acronym SMART is useful for remembering the characteristics of an effective learning outcome.

• Specific : clear and distinct from others.
• Measurable : identifies observable student action.
• Attainable : suitably challenging for students in the course.
• Related : connected to other objectives and student interests.
• Time-bound : likely to be achieved and keep students on task within the given time frame.

Examples of effective learning outcomes

These examples generally follow the ABCD and SMART guidelines. 

Arts and Humanities

Learning goals.

Upon completion of this course, students will be able to apply critical terms and methodology in completing a written literary analysis of a selected literary work.

At the end of the course, students will be able to demonstrate oral competence with the French language in pronunciation, vocabulary, and language fluency in a 10 minute in-person interview with a member of the teaching team.

Learning objectives

After completing lessons 1 through 5, given images of specific works of art, students will be able to identify the artist, artistic period, and describe their historical, social, and philosophical contexts in a two-page written essay.

By the end of this course, students will be able to describe the steps in planning a research study, including identifying and formulating relevant theories, generating alternative solutions and strategies, and application to a hypothetical case in a written research proposal.

At the end of this lesson, given a diagram of the eye, students will be able to label all of the extraocular muscles and describe at least two of their actions.

Using chemical datasets gathered at the end of the first lab unit, students will be able to create plots and trend lines of that data in Excel and make quantitative predictions about future experiments.

• How to Write Learning Goals , Evaluation and Research, Student Affairs (2021).
• SMART Guidelines , Center for Teaching and Learning (2020).
• Learning Taxonomies and Verbs , Center for Teaching and Learning (2021).

Looking for something?

Learning Objectives Basics

Learning objectives describe what we want students to know and be able to do by the end of a course. Objectives are the bedrock of instructional design because they guide every other decision in the development of the course.

Articulating learning objectives can be a little difficult at first, especially if you’re used to thinking about your courses topically rather than in terms of competencies. However, clear, competency-based learning objectives offer distinct benefits. They help you to:

• Prioritize content and focus on what’s most important.
• Break down content into meaningful pieces.
• Design assessments and instruction that support your objectives.
• Communicate your expectations to students.
• Help colleagues teaching the same course understand your intentions.
• Help your department understand how courses in the program fit together.

You can articulate learning objectives for virtually any unit of instruction: courses, modules, lectures, assignments, and so on. Once you start thinking in terms of objectives (if you don’t already), you’ll find this approach is helpful in every aspect of your teaching. Here are some tips for writing effective learning objectives for your course.

What Learning Objectives Look Like

Although you can write objectives in different ways, the following sentence provides a basic framework:

By the end of this course (or any instructional unit), students will be able to _________.

This sentence structure alone doesn’t make an objective effective, however. For instance, you could fill in that statement with something like “understand cheeseburgers” or “comprehend the English language,” neither of which would represent a strong objective. With that in mind, in addition to stating what students should be able to do, a learning objective should be:

• Student centered : It should describe what students will know or be able to do, not what you will teach or cover.
• Active : It should describe what students will be able to do as a result of what they’re learning.
• Observable : It should describe visible behavior, not inward states such as “understanding” or “appreciation.”
• Specific : It should describe activities or knowledge that students can gain from your course (or other instructional unit) and not be overly broad or narrow in scope.

When articulating objectives, think about the following: What are the key points of the course? What are essential skills or pieces of knowledge for your field or subject (e.g., familiarity with terminology or methodology, building certain experiences)? What do you want your students to remember? What practical skills do you want students to gain? The answers to these questions will help ensure that your objectives are student centered, active, observable, and specific.

The following chart gives some examples of weak and strong objectives (according to the above criteria) to explain why a strong objective is better for student learning.

Tips for Writing Your Learning Objectives

As an expert in your field, you can sometimes be so close to your subject matter that it becomes difficult for you to pinpoint the discrete skills and knowledge you want your students to gain. This phenomenon is referred to as expert blind spot , and it suggests that an expert in any given field can forget how difficult it is for a novice to initially learn the content. Given that we should ideally write learning objectives with novices in mind, identifying objectives can sometimes be challenging.

To help with this, consider employing Bloom’s Taxonomy, a framework for distinguishing different types of intellectual skills. Bloom’s Taxonomy identifies six cognitive domains, each of which maps to different action verbs that can help you identify the appropriate learning objectives for your course. The knowledge and comprehension domains, in particular, can help you identify the skills students need before advancing to more complex topics in your course. In this respect, developing your learning objectives based on Bloom’s Taxonomy can help you combat expert blind spot, as it will ensure that students progress sequentially from the novice domains to the expert ones.

Troubleshooting Your Learning Objectives

As with many things, articulating learning objectives gets easier with practice. Eventually, you’ll find you can’t do without them! Until that happens, though, here are a few tips if you get stuck writing objectives.

• If you find yourself describing what you as an instructor will be doing (e.g., “go over a range of qualitative research methods” or “cover differential equations”), you can turn that teaching objective into a learning objective by asking what you want students to be able to do (e.g., “apply a range of qualitative research methods”).
• If you find yourself using verbs such as “understand,” ask yourself: What must students do to demonstrate that they understand the material?
• If you find that your objectives could describe your department’s entire curriculum, they’re too broad. If so, ask yourself: What can students learn in my course that will contribute to this broader goal? For instance, a broad objective such as “Students will be able to think like an economist” can be narrowed to “Students will be able to apply key concepts in microeconomics” or “Students will be able to plot supply-and-demand curves.”
• If your objectives sound like the task specifications for a single assignment, they’re too narrow. If so, try to identify the larger skill you want students to master. For instance, “Students will be able to write a four- to five-page paper that explains the relationship between McGregor’s theory X and theory Y” could be broadened to “Students will be able to articulate the relationships among theories of child development.”
• If your objectives sound like they could appear on a syllabus in almost any course, make them specific to your discipline. For instance, the objective “Students will be able to apply the principles of this course to solve problems” could be made more specific like so: “Students will be able to apply the principles of optimization and elasticity to solve basic economic problems.”

Learning objectives act as guideposts for both you and your students. They can help direct your instructional choices both as you design the course and as you teach it, and they show students the tangible knowledge and skill sets they will gain from your course. Learning to write objectives that are student centered, active, observable, and specific will help you lay a strong foundation for a successful online course.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

• Developing Learning Objectives

Although many teachers create courses without ever articulating exactly what they want students to take away from the experience (beyond simply “learning the content”), most well designed courses begin with specific goals and student-learning objectives. Learning objectives communicate instructional expectations to students and direct the design of your teaching. When you decide what you want students to take away from the course prior to planning the teaching, classroom activities, and assessments of learning, you can be more focused and deliberate in designing all course content to ensure they align with achievement of those goals and objectives; this style of course design is sometimes referred to as “backward design.”

What are goals and objectives?

Goals and objectives are similar in that they describe the intended purposes and expected results of teaching activities and establish the foundation for assessment.

Goals are statements about general aims or purposes of education that are broad, long-range intended outcomes and concepts; goals are often linked to student achievements by the end of a curriculum or sequence of courses. Unlike objectives, goals are often difficult to directly measure or observe.

Objectives are brief, clear statements that describe the desired learning outcomes of instruction; objectives define the specific knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes students should possess and exhibit by the end of the learning experience; objectives should be more specific than goals but should align with meeting the broader goals. Because the objectives are directed at the student’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, sometimes these statements are called behavioral objectives. Others may refer to them as learning, instructional, or educational objectives.

How do you create effective learning objectives?

Alignment with the mission and goals of the program and course

Before designing learning objectives, refer to the mission and goals of the program to guide you. If your course is formally approved by the General Education Oversight Committee (GEOC) to meet specific general education competency requirements, begin by familiarizing yourself with the outcomes specified for the course content area. This information is available on the GEOC website . If your course is approved by another committee or program, begin by familiarizing yourself with the goals and outcomes of that program.

Construction of the parts of the objective

A well-constructed learning objective contains four parts, each of which mean nothing when viewed separately but when combined articulates the learning objective. Once developed the objective will define the conditions under which the behavior is performed, a verb that defines the behavior, and the criteria under which and/or degree to which a student must perform the behavior.

The key to developing objectives is to focus on the ABCD (audience, behavior, condition, and degree) model:

Audience: Who is the target audience? The most common audiences identified in learning objectives are students, learners, participants, or attendees.

Behavior: What is the real work to be accomplished by the student?

This is an action verb that connotes an observable and measurable behaviors. The choice of verb for the objective is critical. Despite their frequent use in objectives, terms such as know, understand, enjoy, and appreciate do not meet the requirement of observable and measurable and therefore should not be used in learning objectives. In contrast, verbs such as write, compare, contrast, build, identify, and recite are all measurable and observable. Please refer to our other learning objective resources to assist with defining the level of learning and domain of your verb, as these are critical in aligning the objective with how you teach and how you assess.

Condition: What are the conditions/constraints within which the audience will be expected to perform these tasks?

This is a statement that describes the exact conditions under which the defined behavior is to be performed. The conditions statement should include information about what tools, aids, or assistance will be provided or denied.

Degree: How will the behavior need to be performed?

This is a statement that specifies how well the student must perform the behavior, such as the degree of accuracy or the quantity or proportion of correct responses. For some learning objectives, this criterion will not be listed, rather it is implied.

• Keep language concise and student friendly . Objectives should be short, focused, and to the point with only the most important descriptive details and minimal jargon.
• Write from the student’s perspective . Faculty often mistakenly write objectives from the teaching perspective, but concentration needs to be on what students learn, not what you will teach
• Ensure all objectives are observable and measurable . Ask yourself how you would observe and measure the verb that you use in your objective. If you are unable to identify how to observe and measure it, you might need a different verb.
• Seek out support if you need it. CETL’s teaching enhancement team and instructional design are available to assist in writing objectives.

Need a quick tip sheet on writing learning objectives? Here it is!

Additional resources:

Robert F. Mager’s Preparing Instructional Objectives . ISBN 978-1879618039

Linda B. Nilson’s Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors . ISBN 978-1119096320

Enjoy this quick video on backward design to assist in aligning objectives with assessments and activities.

Quick Links

• Creating Your Syllabus
• Active Learning
• Service Learning
• Critical Thinking and other Higher-Order Thinking Skills
• Case Based Learning
• Group and Team Based Learning
• Integrating Technology in the Classroom
• Effective PowerPoint Design
• Hybrid and Hybrid Limited Course Design
• Online Course Design

Consult with our CETL Professionals

Consultation services are available to all UConn faculty at all campuses at no charge.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Additional menu

Khan Academy Blog

The Power of Learning Objectives: A Guide for New Teachers

posted on October 4, 2023

By Aviv Weiss , Senior Product Marketing Manager for Educators at Khan Academy and former Teacher

Hey there, as a new teacher, one of the most important things you can do is set clear expectations for what your students are meant to achieve. This is where learning objectives come in. They’re like a road map that guides both you and your students. In this blog, we’ll explore the benefits of setting learning objectives in the classroom and guide you through creating specific and measurable objectives that can help your students succeed. We’ll also share some helpful tips to ensure your students’ success with implementing learning objectives and explore how AI-powered applications like Khanmigo can save you time and help you achieve your teaching goals faster. Let’s get started!

Use AI to write learning objectives with these prompts

Benefits of learning objectives in the classroom.

Setting clear learning objectives has numerous benefits for both teachers and students.

First and foremost, learning objectives provide direction and focus for lessons,which helps teachers maintain a clear vision of what they want to achieve. This ensures that students understand the purpose of the lesson. By knowing what they’re supposed to learn and achieve, students are better able to stay engaged, motivated, and interested in what they are learning.

Plus, by setting clear objectives, teachers can more easily assess student progress and adjust their teaching style and strategies to ensure students are getting the most out of each lesson.

How to Set Specific, Measurable Learning Objectives for Your Students

To create strong learning objectives, let’s be specific and measurable in our statements. This way, we can easily determine if students have met the objectives and make it clearer for them to understand what we expect. So, start by pinpointing the most important outcomes you want your students to achieve. Then, let’s create a statement that clearly explains what students will know or be able to do by the end of the lesson. For example, “students will be able to differentiate between adjectives and adverbs in sentences.” Let’s make sure the objective is achievable and realistic for your students’ level. You’ve got this!

Align Your Learning Objectives to State Curriculum 

Aligning your learning objectives to the state curriculum is super important for ensuring educational effectiveness. By mapping your objectives to the curriculum, you can provide students with a structured and comprehensive learning experience that meets all the required standards. This alignment not only helps students acquire the necessary knowledge and skills, but it also supports their overall academic growth and success. So, take the time to carefully analyze and align your learning objectives to the state curriculum, and get ready to see your students thrive in their educational journey!

Let’s give an example of developing a learning objective with Khanmigo:

Khanmigo : Let’s write some learning objectives! What standard are you working on today? (Please provide the text of the standard.) Teacher : My students need to tackle standard 6.G.A.1. Can you help me break down what they need to be able to do to master this standard?  Note: This is from Common Core standards. Khanmigo : Great! Now, let’s think about what we want the students to be able to do by the end of the lesson. Based on the standard, it seems like we want them to find the area of various shapes. Is that correct? Teacher : Yes. Khanmigo : Fantastic! Now, let’s think about the specific action we want the students to take. We want them to “find” the area, but that’s a bit vague. How about we use a more specific verb, like “calculate”? This way, we can observe them doing the calculations. What do you think? Teacher : I would like to observe my students doing the calculations. Khanmigo : Great! Now, are there any tools or references the students would need to calculate the area of these shapes? For example, would they need a formula sheet or a calculator? Teacher : Calculators only. Khanmigo : Perfect! So, here’s a draft of our learning objective: “By the end of the lesson, students will be able to calculate the area of right triangles, other triangles, special quadrilaterals, and polygons using a calculator.” Does that sound good to you, or are there any changes you’d like to make? Now, if you think this is too much work for your students to get done in one class, we can split learning objectives further down: Teacher : Could you break down this learning objective into five lessons? Khanmigo : Absolutely! Here’s how we could break it down: “By the end of Lesson 1, students will be able to calculate the area of right triangles using a calculator.” “By the end of Lesson 2, students will be able to calculate the area of other types of triangles using a calculator.” “By the end of Lesson 3, students will be able to calculate the area of special quadrilaterals using a calculator.” “By the end of Lesson 4, students will be able to calculate the area of other polygons using a calculator.” “By the end of Lesson 5, students will apply these techniques to solve real-world and mathematical problems involving the calculation of area.” How does that sound? Would you like to make any changes?

Tips to Ensure Your Student’s Success with Successful Implementation of Learning Objectives

• Set clear learning objectives: Clearly define what your students should be able to accomplish by the end of the learning period.
• Align objectives with curriculum: Ensure that the learning objectives are in line with the curriculum and educational standards.
• Break down objectives into smaller tasks: Divide the learning objectives into manageable tasks to facilitate better understanding and progress.
• Provide regular feedback: Give constructive feedback to students to help them track their progress and make necessary adjustments.
• Foster a supportive learning environment: Create a positive and supportive atmosphere that encourages students to actively engage in achieving the learning objectives.

Get to instructional action in seconds.

Setting learning objectives in the classroom is a fantastic and meaningful way to help students achieve academic success. Clearly defined learning objectives provide direction and focus for both teachers and students. With the help of AI-powered applications like Khanmigo , teachers can tailor their teaching to achieve their goals faster and save time. By setting realistic and achievable objectives, communicating them clearly to students, and tracking progress every step of the way, teachers can help their students reach their full potential and set them up for lifelong success!

Get Khanmigo

The best way to learn and teach with AI is here. Ace the school year with our AI-powered guide, Khanmigo. 

For learners     For teachers     For parents

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

fa51e2b1dc8cca8f7467da564e77b5ea

• Make a Gift
• Join Our Email List
• On Learning Goals and Learning Objectives

You will find lots of talk in the literature on teaching and learning about the importance of articulating  learning goals  and  learning objectives  for your students. Indeed, at some universities, faculty are required to submit formal learning objectives when proposing a course and/or to include them in the course catalogue and on the syllabus.

Though we agree on the importance of learning goals and objectives, at the Bok Center we tend to talk about them in slightly different terms when consulting with instructors. There are two reasons for this:

• First, the terms themselves can be unnecessarily confusing. In common parlance, "goal" and "objective" are synonyms; what, then, is the difference between a learning goal and a learning objective?
• Second, these terms can have the ring of bureaucracy about them, particularly to instructors in more humanities-oriented disciplines who may well reject the notion that it is possible to determine in advance where a student's encounter with a text or object may or may not lead. Is the requirement to articulate learning objectives not just part of a plan to reduce the ineffable process of intellectual exploration to something crudely quantifiable?

The first of these two concerns is not, in fact, that severe. The distinction between "learning goals" and "learning objectives" is actually pretty commonsensical: in this context  goals  generally refer to the higher-order ambitions you have for your students, while  objectives  are the specific, measurable competencies which you would assess in order to decide whether your goals had been met. (To give one example: if it were your goal to teach students how to critique theories of state formation, the corresponding objective might be: "By the end of this course, students should be able to write an essay that explains one major theory of state formation and makes an argument about how well it describes the historical experience of a relevant country.")

The second concern is perhaps best countered by acknowledging that while your goals and objectives might not be entirely quantifiable, this is hardly an excuse for not at least engaging in the process of thinking them through. Whether you are a graduate student teaching for the first time, or a senior faculty member with many years of experience behind you, every course you teach presents some mixture of freedom and constraint. Many of the things that we teach, and the ways that we relate to our students, are predetermined by the calendars and status hierarchies of our universities. As a graduate student, for example, you may be free to decide how you will organize the individual discussion sections or labs in the course you are teaching, but most likely not the syllabus itself, which will have been set by your course head. Likewise, as a faculty member, you may be given wide latitude to choose the subjects covered in your courses, the readings you assign, and the terms of your students' assignments, but you almost certainly will have to factor your department's curriculum or the needs of its graduate program into your decisions. Our disciplinary identities impinge upon our teaching still further. It is hard to go against the grain and choose not to assign a term paper in a writing-intensive discipline, or to engage students in a creative art project in a very quantitative STEM field—even when we suspect that an unconventional assignment might be more apt to test our students' mastery. Whether we recognize it or not, we all come to the act of teaching with at least a few stubborn preconceptions about what we and our students are "supposed to" be doing. Pretending that these preconceptions don't exist easily leads one to over-naturalize them—and, therefore, to forget that your students are unlikely to share all of them.

As you think about identifying your goals and objectives, we encourage you to make use of two frameworks: taxonomies of learning , and your own disciplinary identity .

For more information...

Download a copy of our worksheet that walks you through writing learning goals and learning objectives

MIT's Teaching & Learning Lab on learning outcomes

Carnegie Mellon's Eberly Center explains how to set learning objectives

Michigan's Center for Research on Learning and Teaching has resources on course design and planning

• Learner-Centered Design
• Putting Evidence at the Center
• Taxonomies of Learning
• Disciplinary Transparency
• Start with the Capstone
• How to Write an Effective Assignment
• Scaffolding: Using Frequency and Sequencing Intentionally
• Curating Content: The Virtue of Modules
• Syllabus Design
• Catalogue Materials
• Making a Course Presentation Video
• Teaching Teams
• In the Classroom
• Getting Feedback
• Equitable & Inclusive Teaching
• Advising and Mentoring
• Teaching and Your Career
• Teaching Remotely
• Tools and Platforms
• The Science of Learning
• Bok Publications
• Other Resources Around Campus

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation, design & teach a course, articulate your learning objectives.

Before you decide on the content to cover in your course, endow your course with a strong internal structure conducive to student learning.

Alignment among three main course components ensures an internally consistent structure. Alignment is when the:

• OBJECTIVES articulate the knowledge and skills you want students to acquire by the end of the course
• ASSESSMENTS allow the instructor to check the degree to which the students are meeting the learning objectives
• INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES are chosen to foster student learning towards meeting the objectives

When these components are not aligned, students might rightfully complain that the test did not have anything to do with what was covered in class, or instructors might feel that even though students are earning a passing grade, they haven’t really mastered the material at the desired level.

Aligning these three components is a dynamic process, since a change in one necessarily affects the other two.

Articulating your learning objectives will help:.

• YOU select and organize course content, and determine appropriate assessments and instructional strategies.
• STUDENTS direct their learning efforts appropriately and monitor their own progress.

Learning objectives should be student-centered.

We, as instructors, often have a good idea of what we want to accomplish in a given course:

We want to cover certain topics, or we want to teach students certain ideas and skills.

We should also think in terms of what we want the students to be able to do at the end of the course. It is very helpful to articulate learning objectives by completing this prompt:

“At the end of the course, students should be able to _____.”

Learning objectives should break down the task and focus on specific cognitive processes.

Many activities that faculty believe require a single skill (for example, writing or problem solving) actually involve a synthesis of many component skills.

To master these complex skills, students must practice and gain proficiency in the discrete component skills.

• writing may involve identifying an argument, enlisting appropriate evidence, organizing paragraphs, etc.
• problem solving may require defining the parameters of the problem, choosing appropriate formulas, etc.

Breaking down the skills will allow us to select appropriate assessments and instructional strategies so that students practice all component skills.

Learning objectives should use action verbs.

Focusing on concrete actions and behaviors allows us to make student learning explicit, and communicates to students the kind of intellectual effort we expect of them. Sample learning objectives for a math class might be:

• “ State theorems” (implies memorization and recall)
• “ Prove theorems” (implies applying knowledge)
• “ Apply theorems to solve problems“ (implies applying knowledge)
• “ Decide when a given theorem applies” (involves meta-cognitive decision-making skills)

Using action verbs enables you to more easily measure the degree to which students can do what you expect them to do.

Learning objectives should be measurable.

Because learning objectives should guide the selection of assessments, they cannot be vague.

All of learning objectives we've exemplified are measurable in that they point to a clear assessment that can easily check whether students have mastered that skill (e.g., asking students to state a given theorem, giving students a thesis statement to prove, asking students to solve a textbook problem that requires the application of a theorem, or asking students which theorem they would use in a given situation).

Some learning objectives that are typically vague but are often used include:

• “Understand X”
• “Obtain a working knowledge of X”
• “Gain an appreciation for X”

These objectives can be clarified by asking ourselves:

"What would students do differently if they really 'understand' or 'appreciate' X?"

Articulating your learning objectives at the appropriate grain can be challenging at first. Here are some resources to help:

• List of action verbs (pdf) – a starting point for writing learning objectives
• Bloom’s taxonomy – taxonomy created to categorize a continuum of educational objectives
• Samples of learning objectives from a variety of courses
• Contact us to talk with an Eberly colleague in person.

Research Aims, Objectives & Questions

The “Golden Thread” Explained Simply (+ Examples)

By: David Phair (PhD) and Alexandra Shaeffer (PhD) | June 2022

The research aims , objectives and research questions (collectively called the “golden thread”) are arguably the most important thing you need to get right when you’re crafting a research proposal , dissertation or thesis . We receive questions almost every day about this “holy trinity” of research and there’s certainly a lot of confusion out there, so we’ve crafted this post to help you navigate your way through the fog.

Overview: The Golden Thread

• What is the golden thread
• What are research aims ( examples )
• What are research objectives ( examples )
• What are research questions ( examples )
• The importance of alignment in the golden thread

What is the “golden thread”?  

The golden thread simply refers to the collective research aims , research objectives , and research questions for any given project (i.e., a dissertation, thesis, or research paper ). These three elements are bundled together because it’s extremely important that they align with each other, and that the entire research project aligns with them.

Importantly, the golden thread needs to weave its way through the entirety of any research project , from start to end. In other words, it needs to be very clearly defined right at the beginning of the project (the topic ideation and proposal stage) and it needs to inform almost every decision throughout the rest of the project. For example, your research design and methodology will be heavily influenced by the golden thread (we’ll explain this in more detail later), as well as your literature review.

The research aims, objectives and research questions (the golden thread) define the focus and scope ( the delimitations ) of your research project. In other words, they help ringfence your dissertation or thesis to a relatively narrow domain, so that you can “go deep” and really dig into a specific problem or opportunity. They also help keep you on track , as they act as a litmus test for relevance. In other words, if you’re ever unsure whether to include something in your document, simply ask yourself the question, “does this contribute toward my research aims, objectives or questions?”. If it doesn’t, chances are you can drop it.

Alright, enough of the fluffy, conceptual stuff. Let’s get down to business and look at what exactly the research aims, objectives and questions are and outline a few examples to bring these concepts to life.

Research Aims: What are they?

Simply put, the research aim(s) is a statement that reflects the broad overarching goal (s) of the research project. Research aims are fairly high-level (low resolution) as they outline the general direction of the research and what it’s trying to achieve .

Research Aims: Examples  

True to the name, research aims usually start with the wording “this research aims to…”, “this research seeks to…”, and so on. For example:

“This research aims to explore employee experiences of digital transformation in retail HR.”   “This study sets out to assess the interaction between student support and self-care on well-being in engineering graduate students”  

As you can see, these research aims provide a high-level description of what the study is about and what it seeks to achieve. They’re not hyper-specific or action-oriented, but they’re clear about what the study’s focus is and what is being investigated.

Need a helping hand?

Research Objectives: What are they?

The research objectives take the research aims and make them more practical and actionable . In other words, the research objectives showcase the steps that the researcher will take to achieve the research aims.

The research objectives need to be far more specific (higher resolution) and actionable than the research aims. In fact, it’s always a good idea to craft your research objectives using the “SMART” criteria. In other words, they should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound”.

Research Objectives: Examples  

Let’s look at two examples of research objectives. We’ll stick with the topic and research aims we mentioned previously.  

For the digital transformation topic:

To observe the retail HR employees throughout the digital transformation. To assess employee perceptions of digital transformation in retail HR. To identify the barriers and facilitators of digital transformation in retail HR.

And for the student wellness topic:

To determine whether student self-care predicts the well-being score of engineering graduate students. To determine whether student support predicts the well-being score of engineering students. To assess the interaction between student self-care and student support when predicting well-being in engineering graduate students.

  As you can see, these research objectives clearly align with the previously mentioned research aims and effectively translate the low-resolution aims into (comparatively) higher-resolution objectives and action points . They give the research project a clear focus and present something that resembles a research-based “to-do” list.

Research Questions: What are they?

Finally, we arrive at the all-important research questions. The research questions are, as the name suggests, the key questions that your study will seek to answer . Simply put, they are the core purpose of your dissertation, thesis, or research project. You’ll present them at the beginning of your document (either in the introduction chapter or literature review chapter) and you’ll answer them at the end of your document (typically in the discussion and conclusion chapters).  

The research questions will be the driving force throughout the research process. For example, in the literature review chapter, you’ll assess the relevance of any given resource based on whether it helps you move towards answering your research questions. Similarly, your methodology and research design will be heavily influenced by the nature of your research questions. For instance, research questions that are exploratory in nature will usually make use of a qualitative approach, whereas questions that relate to measurement or relationship testing will make use of a quantitative approach.  

Let’s look at some examples of research questions to make this more tangible.

Research Questions: Examples  

Again, we’ll stick with the research aims and research objectives we mentioned previously.  

For the digital transformation topic (which would be qualitative in nature):

How do employees perceive digital transformation in retail HR? What are the barriers and facilitators of digital transformation in retail HR?  

And for the student wellness topic (which would be quantitative in nature):

Does student self-care predict the well-being scores of engineering graduate students? Does student support predict the well-being scores of engineering students? Do student self-care and student support interact when predicting well-being in engineering graduate students?  

You’ll probably notice that there’s quite a formulaic approach to this. In other words, the research questions are basically the research objectives “converted” into question format. While that is true most of the time, it’s not always the case. For example, the first research objective for the digital transformation topic was more or less a step on the path toward the other objectives, and as such, it didn’t warrant its own research question.  

So, don’t rush your research questions and sloppily reword your objectives as questions. Carefully think about what exactly you’re trying to achieve (i.e. your research aim) and the objectives you’ve set out, then craft a set of well-aligned research questions . Also, keep in mind that this can be a somewhat iterative process , where you go back and tweak research objectives and aims to ensure tight alignment throughout the golden thread.

The importance of strong alignment 

Alignment is the keyword here and we have to stress its importance . Simply put, you need to make sure that there is a very tight alignment between all three pieces of the golden thread. If your research aims and research questions don’t align, for example, your project will be pulling in different directions and will lack focus . This is a common problem students face and can cause many headaches (and tears), so be warned.

Take the time to carefully craft your research aims, objectives and research questions before you run off down the research path. Ideally, get your research supervisor/advisor to review and comment on your golden thread before you invest significant time into your project, and certainly before you start collecting data .  

Recap: The golden thread

In this post, we unpacked the golden thread of research, consisting of the research aims , research objectives and research questions . You can jump back to any section using the links below.

As always, feel free to leave a comment below – we always love to hear from you. Also, if you’re interested in 1-on-1 support, take a look at our private coaching service here.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

39 Comments

Thank you very much for your great effort put. As an Undergraduate taking Demographic Research & Methodology, I’ve been trying so hard to understand clearly what is a Research Question, Research Aim and the Objectives in a research and the relationship between them etc. But as for now I’m thankful that you’ve solved my problem.

Well appreciated. This has helped me greatly in doing my dissertation.

An so delighted with this wonderful information thank you a lot.

so impressive i have benefited a lot looking forward to learn more on research.

I am very happy to have carefully gone through this well researched article.

Infact,I used to be phobia about anything research, because of my poor understanding of the concepts.

Now,I get to know that my research question is the same as my research objective(s) rephrased in question format.

I please I would need a follow up on the subject,as I intends to join the team of researchers. Thanks once again.

Thanks so much. This was really helpful.

I know you pepole have tried to break things into more understandable and easy format. And God bless you. Keep it up

i found this document so useful towards my study in research methods. thanks so much.

This is my 2nd read topic in your course and I should commend the simplified explanations of each part. I’m beginning to understand and absorb the use of each part of a dissertation/thesis. I’ll keep on reading your free course and might be able to avail the training course! Kudos!

Thank you! Better put that my lecture and helped to easily understand the basics which I feel often get brushed over when beginning dissertation work.

This is quite helpful. I like how the Golden thread has been explained and the needed alignment.

This is quite helpful. I really appreciate!

The article made it simple for researcher students to differentiate between three concepts.

Very innovative and educational in approach to conducting research.

I am very impressed with all these terminology, as I am a fresh student for post graduate, I am highly guided and I promised to continue making consultation when the need arise. Thanks a lot.

A very helpful piece. thanks, I really appreciate it .

Very well explained, and it might be helpful to many people like me.

Wish i had found this (and other) resource(s) at the beginning of my PhD journey… not in my writing up year… 😩 Anyways… just a quick question as i’m having some issues ordering my “golden thread”…. does it matter in what order you mention them? i.e., is it always first aims, then objectives, and finally the questions? or can you first mention the research questions and then the aims and objectives?

Thank you for a very simple explanation that builds upon the concepts in a very logical manner. Just prior to this, I read the research hypothesis article, which was equally very good. This met my primary objective.

My secondary objective was to understand the difference between research questions and research hypothesis, and in which context to use which one. However, I am still not clear on this. Can you kindly please guide?

In research, a research question is a clear and specific inquiry that the researcher wants to answer, while a research hypothesis is a tentative statement or prediction about the relationship between variables or the expected outcome of the study. Research questions are broader and guide the overall study, while hypotheses are specific and testable statements used in quantitative research. Research questions identify the problem, while hypotheses provide a focus for testing in the study.

Exactly what I need in this research journey, I look forward to more of your coaching videos.

This helped a lot. Thanks so much for the effort put into explaining it.

What data source in writing dissertation/Thesis requires?

What is data source covers when writing dessertation/thesis

This is quite useful thanks

I’m excited and thankful. I got so much value which will help me progress in my thesis.

where are the locations of the reserch statement, research objective and research question in a reserach paper? Can you write an ouline that defines their places in the researh paper?

Very helpful and important tips on Aims, Objectives and Questions.

Thank you so much for making research aim, research objectives and research question so clear. This will be helpful to me as i continue with my thesis.

Thanks much for this content. I learned a lot. And I am inspired to learn more. I am still struggling with my preparation for dissertation outline/proposal. But I consistently follow contents and tutorials and the new FB of GRAD Coach. Hope to really become confident in writing my dissertation and successfully defend it.

As a researcher and lecturer, I find splitting research goals into research aims, objectives, and questions is unnecessarily bureaucratic and confusing for students. For most biomedical research projects, including ‘real research’, 1-3 research questions will suffice (numbers may differ by discipline).

Awesome! Very important resources and presented in an informative way to easily understand the golden thread. Indeed, thank you so much.

Well explained

The blog article on research aims, objectives, and questions by Grad Coach is a clear and insightful guide that aligns with my experiences in academic research. The article effectively breaks down the often complex concepts of research aims and objectives, providing a straightforward and accessible explanation. Drawing from my own research endeavors, I appreciate the practical tips offered, such as the need for specificity and clarity when formulating research questions. The article serves as a valuable resource for students and researchers, offering a concise roadmap for crafting well-defined research goals and objectives. Whether you’re a novice or an experienced researcher, this article provides practical insights that contribute to the foundational aspects of a successful research endeavor.

A great thanks for you. it is really amazing explanation. I grasp a lot and one step up to research knowledge.

I really found these tips helpful. Thank you very much Grad Coach.

I found this article helpful. Thanks for sharing this.

thank you so much, the explanation and examples are really helpful

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Your browser is unsupported

We recommend using the latest version of IE11, Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Center for the Advancement of Teaching Excellence

Learning objectives.

Erin Stapleton-Corcoran, CATE Instructional Designer January 27, 2023

WHAT? Heading link Copy link

Learning Objectives are a description of significant and essential learning that learners have achieved and are reliably able to demonstrate upon completion of an educational activity. A well-written learning objective outlines the knowledge, skills and/or attitudes the learners will gain from the educational activity. (Chatterjee, D., & Corral, J. 2017).

What Should Learning Objectives Do?

• Center on what students should be able to do, know, or demonstrate, rather than what you do as an instructor.
• Break down the learning task into discrete skills components. Learning objectives focus on incremental steps in learning toward a larger learning goal.
• Focus on observable, measurable behavior. This is achieved by pinpointing the specific actions students need to complete to achieve and demonstrate their understanding of course content.

What Are the Three Key Components of a Learning Objective?

• Behavior : describes what the learner will be able to do.     Example:   … create viable solutions to the classification problem ..                         or                         … write measurable learning objectives
• Condition : describes the tools, situations, settings, or restrictions under which the behavior will occur.     Example:  … Using the TensorFlow platform, students will be able to…                         or                         … By the end of this module, students will be able to…..
• Standards : Define the criterion of acceptable student outcomes.  Criteria can be described in terms of accuracy (minimum/maximum), productivity level, time, and degree of excellence (Mager 1984).     Example: … with accurate identification of ten classes in Fashion MNIST data.                         or                         … for different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy in the cognitive domain

• Learning objective containing all three components :     Example:  … Using TensorFlow software, the student will be able to create viable solutions to a classification problem with accurate identification of ten classes in Fashion MNIST data.                         or                         … By the end of this module, students will be able to craft measurable learning objectives for different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy in the cognitive domain.

Note: While it is optimal to include all three components in a learning objective, it is not necessary or always feasible to include conditions or criterion in each learning objective.

Learning Objectives, Course Goals, or Teaching Objectives: What Term Should You Use?

The term learning objectives is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms course goals , learning outcomes , or teaching objectives .

Course goals are broad statements of what you want students to learn. Course goals, sometimes referred to as course-level learning objectives, may use verbs associated with outcomes that are not readily observable and do not lend themselves easily to measurement (e.g., know, understand, value, appreciate). Examples of statements that can be considered course goals are: “Understand the process of scientific inquiry” and “Appreciate the intangible benefits of art in society.” Course goals can be integrated into the “course description” of a syllabus, providing students with broader context such as relevance, connection to real life, and motivational or aspirational drivers for taking a particular course.

Learning outcomes are used to describe what a student knows or is able to do as a result of completing a learning experience, whether at the course, module/unit, or assignment level. Learning outcomes are intended to be more synonymous with learning objectives than course goals or teaching objectives.

Teaching objectives are statements written from an instructor’s perspective, providing the content, context, and direction of instruction. Teaching objectives are very helpful in creating lesson plans for your course.

The terms goals, objectives, and outcomes often are used interchangeably. Although all are related to the teaching and learning taking place in a course, the emphasis differs as to the scope and scale of the learning. This teaching guide will focus on writing learning objectives.

WHY? Heading link Copy link

Well-designed learning objectives benefit both students and instructors in a number of ways..

Learning objectives can give students a clear picture of what to expect and what’s expected of them.

Learning objectives can communicate what is important to their learning. Without learning objectives it can be difficult for students to know what they are supposed to be learning and where they should be paying particular attention. Well-written learning objectives can facilitate efficient and more effective study methods by students.

Well-designed learning objectives can help students learn new materials in such a way that they can flexibly and appropriately use it in a variety of contexts, both in the short term and down the road.  This is known as  “transfer,” which is a key indicator of deep learning (Barnett & Ceci, 2002).

Learning objectives can help students build metacognitive skills. Metacognition is the “the process of reflecting on and directing one’s own thinking” (National Research Council, 2001). Self-directed learning consists of assessing the learning objectives, taking stock of one’s own knowledge and skills, planning one’s approach to learn the material, monitoring one’s progress, and adjusting learning strategies as needed (Hammond and Collins 1991)

Instructors:

Learning objectives help instructors select appropriate instructional materials and organize course content. The use of well-defined, actionable learning objectives leverages your ability to assess texts or activities for their relevance and suitability.

Learning objectives help instructors build assessments that are aligned with the learning activities or instructional materials included in the course.  Alignment is the degree to which learning objectives, assessments, and learning activities and instructional materials work together to achieve desired learning goals. Well-articulated learning objectives make clear that you are assessing materials that were covered in the course and make the creation of assessment items easier for you. Check your learning objectives for alignment with assessments, and if they are not well aligned, revise the objectives as needed.

Learning objectives and course alignment Heading link Copy link

Learning objectives and course alignment.

Articulating learning objectives is an essential step in ensuring course alignment of three key components:

• Learning Objectives articulate the knowledge and skills you want students to acquire by the end of the course.
• Assessments allow the instructor to check the degree to which the students are meeting the learning objectives.
• Learning activities and instructional materials are chosen to foster student learning toward meeting the objectives.

Please review the Backward Design Teaching Guide to learn more about alignment of learning objectives, assessments, and learning activities/instructional materials.

The three key components.

HOW DO YOU CRAFT EFFECTIVE LEARNING OBJECTIVES? Heading link Copy link

 identifying knowledge, skills, and changes in attitude.

Next, identify knowledge or skills that students should learn, or changes in attitudes you are hoping to see,by the end of the course, module, or learning activity.

Now would be the time to review your course-level objectives or broader learning goals and craft weekly or modular-level learning objectives that align with your course objectives  or goals.

Choosing Action Verbs

Then, choose an action verb to reflect an observable, measurable outcome or behavior that aligns with the desired knowledge or skills identified above.

Learning taxonomies can be a useful tool for identifying action verbs that create specific and measurable learning objectives. Bloom’s Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives is a framework for classifying learning objectives (1956).  Bloom identified three domains of educational activities or learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Bloom then assigned to the cognitive domain a system of learning made up of six levels of learning: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. A full discussion of Bloom’s Taxonomy is available in the CATE Teaching Guide , but referring to the Bloom’s Taxonomy Verb Chart on its own is a great starting point to brainstorm action verbs that align with the learning you want to facilitate in your courses.

An alternative to Bloom’s is Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning (2003; revised 2013). Like Bloom’s taxonomy, Fink’s is composed of six categories of learning, which are:

• Foundational knowledge
• Application
• Integration
• The human dimension
• Learning how to learn

However, unlike Bloom’s taxonomy, Fink’s is non-hierarchical, with each element interacting with one another to “create significant learning,” or an impact a course continues to have on students a couple of years after it is over. Each kind of learning can stimulate any of the other kinds of learning. For a concise list of action verbs aligned to Fink’s six categories of learning, consult the document Fink’s Taxonomy Learning Objectives .

Tips for Writing Effective Learning Objectives Heading link Copy link

Tips for writing effective learning objectives.

When crafting learning objectives, avoid using verbs such as “learn,” “become,” “know,” or “understand.” As discussed earlier in this teaching guide, course-level objectives or learning goals may include verbs not readily observable and which do not lend themselves easily to measurement, but learning objectives at the unit, module, or lesson level should reflect more measurable and observable actions or behaviors.

Make sure that each learning objective includes only one action verb and one specific aspect of expected performance or behavior. For example, a learning objective that includes the two-verb phrase “… draft and revise an essay…” should be broken down into two learning objectives specific to each action verb or should be drafted in a way that better reflects the entire essay crafting process rather than granular components of the writing assignment.

Specify the condition in which the performance or behavior will occur.

Example: In this learning objective: “After reviewing CATE’s learning objectives teaching guide, you will be able to craft measurable and observable learning objectives,” the condition is “After reviewing CATE’s learning objectives teaching guide.”

In summary, you should make sure that each learning objective answers the following questions:

• how much or how well

Making Sure Your Learning Objectives are SMART

The mnemonic SMART — Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-based — serves as a guide when crafting effective learning objectives.

The mnemonic SMART

Making Sure your Learning Objectives are SMART Heading link Copy link

The learning objective should be well-defined and clear. Make sure the learning objective is specific to the lesson and is specifically stated. Avoid using verbs that are vague and cannot be observed, such as appreciate, know, or believe.  Be specific about how a student will demonstrate their learning.

Learning objective example lacking specificity : By the end of this session, the student will be able to study Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Learning objectivity revised for specificity : By the end of this session, the student will be able to cite examples in support of Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The learning objective should both describe what a student will do, as well as exactly how the learning will be measured and evaluated.

Example of an unmeasurable learning objective : By the end of the lesson, learners will know the causes of the Second World War.

Learning objective revised for measurability : By the end of the lesson, students will be able to recount a timeline of the events leading up to the Second World War.

Can the objective be accomplished in the proposed time frame with the available resources and support? Do the students have the prior learning necessary to accomplish the objective? Unrealistic expectations or goals for the completion of a learning objective are self-defeating for both the student and the instructor.

Example of an unachievable learning objective : By the end of the lesson, students will be able to research the European Union.

Revised learning objective : By the end of the lesson, students will be able to describe the organization of the European Union.

Does the objective address the overall program goal(s)? Will the objective have an impact on the goal(s)? Ensuring that all learning objectives are relevant to a specific lesson entails careful course design.

Mapping out your course is a great way to make sure that all course objectives are relevant to the lesson and that learning materials, activities, and assessments all work together. See CATE’s course map template for more information on getting started on your own course map.

Time-Based or Time-Bound

A learning objective should include a specific time by which it will be completed, such as by the end of a lesson, module, or course.

It is important to allow enough time in the lesson, module, or course to complete the steps needed to achieve the objective (Skrbic and Burrows, 2015).

Learning objective checklist Heading link Copy link

Learning objective checklist.

• Do your learning objectives align with the overall course goals or course-level objectives?
• Do your learning objectives refer to what students should achieve, rather than what you, the instructor, will do?
• Does each learning objective target just one specific aspect of expected student outcomes?
• Does each learning objective use only one action verb?
• Is each learning objective measurable or observable?
• Is each learning objective concise, devoid of jargon, and focused on only the most important descriptive details?
• Does each learning objective align with assessments, learning materials, and instructional activities?

Learning objective examples across the disciplines Heading link Copy link

Learning objective examples across the disciplines.

• By the end of this course, students should be able to solve problems using matrix techniques and algorithms. (Math)
• By the end of this module, students should be able to use wave mechanics in 1 dimension to describe continuous degrees of freedom such as position and momentum for a quantum system. (Physics)
• By the end of this module, students should be able to evaluate the progress made to date on identifying exosolar planets, particularly those with the potential to have Earth-like surface conditions. (Biology)
• By the end of this lesson, students will be able to apply the volume displacement method to find the volume of an object. (Chemistry)
• By the end of this week, students should be able to apply backtracking search algorithms to constraint satisfaction problems. (Computer science)

Humanities and Social Sciences

• By the end of this course, students should be able to describe the major stylistic characteristics from each of the periods in the music of the Western European tradition. (Music appreciation)
• By the end of this course, students should be able to critically evaluate both primary and secondary sources related to contemporary African political history. (History)
• By the end of the course, students will be able to conduct ethnographic research informed by an anthropological perspective. (Anthropology)
• By the end of this course, students should be able to identify different rhetorical strategies and appeals in the writing of others. (Composition)
• By the end of this session, students should be able to explain how a clinical psychologist could demonstrate a developmental perspective while assessing children or adolescents. (Psychology)
• By the end of the course, students should be able to harmonize melodies by composing four-part textures that are consistent with the conventions of four-part chorale-style writing. (Music Composition)
• By the end of this course, students should be able to analyze music using a core vocabulary of 19th-century harmonic techniques, identifying them and explaining their use in context. (Music Analysis)
• By the end of this week, students should be able to articulate a clear and comprehensive architectural concept which is verified during design development. (Architecture)
• By the end of this week, students should be able to describe their painting submission in relation to historical and contemporary contexts. (Painting)
• By the end of this module, students should be able to identify the essential components of a Bach chorale in terms of its formal structure and its melodic and harmonic language. (Music History)
• By the end of this course, students should be able to visually communicate abstract concepts using drawing and design. (Drawing)

Business and Education

• By the end of this workshop, you should be able to review Bloom’s taxonomy as a guide to write learning objectives at different hierarchies. (Education)
• By the end of this module, students will be able to solve linear optimization problems that fit an investor’s goals and constraints. (Business Management)
• By the end of this module, you will be able to assess the strengths and limitations of basic operations management models for a given business problem. (Business Management)

Additional Considerations Heading link Copy link

Additional considerations.

Class size has an impact on the effectiveness of your learning objectives and guides how you craft your learning objectives. According to a study conducted by Taft, Kesten, and El-Banna, instructors of large classes (more than 40 students) are more likely to emphasize learning foundational and factual knowledge and are less likely to stress developing oral and written communication skills. On the other hand, instructors of small classes (fewer than 15 students) are more likely to emphasize mastery of complex knowledge and student skill development (2019).

Studies have also shown that instructors in small and medium classes are more likely to involve students in hands-on projects and real-life activities, assign projects that require original or creative thinking, form teams or discussion groups to facilitate learning, and ask students to help each other understand concepts or ideas (Benton and Pallett 2013). As you are crafting your learning objectives for your course, keep in mind that class size may have some impact on the learning activities and assessments that work best, which will then impact course learning objectives. You may want to consider implementing group work or team-based learning in your larger size courses to facilitate more student collaboration.

Course Modality

The course modality – on-campus, online synchronous, online asynchronous, hybrid, synchronous distributed – used in a course does not have a direct or immediate impact on how you craft your learning objectives. However, course modality does impact how you will assess student learning, what instructional materials and learning activities are most effective for the course modality, and which edtech tools you would like to use in your course. When crafting learning objectives, think through how you will implement learning activities and assess learning as this will impact your learning objectives as you align your objectives/assessments/learning activities and instructional materials. Please review the collection of Assessment and Grading Practices Teaching Guides to learn more about different ways to assess student learning in courses of all modalities.

CITING THIS GUIDE Heading link Copy link

Citing this guide.

Stapleton-Corcoran, E. (2023). “Learning Objectives.” Center for the Advancement of Teaching Excellence at the University of Illinois Chicago. Retrieved [today’s date] from https://teaching.uic.edu/resources/teaching-guides/learning-principles-and-frameworks/learning-objectives/

REFERENCES Heading link Copy link

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain . New York, NY: David McKay Company.

Chatterjee, D., & Corral, J. (2017). How to Write Well-Defined Learning Objectives. T he journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM , 19(4), E610.

Fink, D.L. (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Hammond, M. & Collins, R. (1991). Self-directed learning: Critical practice . London: Kogan Page Limited.

Mager, R.F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives (Rev. 2nd ed.). Lake Pub. Co.

Taft, S. H., Kesten, K., & El-Banna, M. M. (2019). One Size Does Not Fit All: Toward an Evidence-Based Framework for Determining Online Course Enrollment Sizes in Higher Education. Online Learning , 23 (3).

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning

Charlotte Ruhl

Research Assistant & Psychology Graduate

BA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University

Charlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a set of three hierarchical models used to classify educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity. The three lists cover the learning objectives in cognitive, affective, and sensory domains, namely: thinking skills, emotional responses, and physical skills.

Key Takeaways

• Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model that categorizes learning objectives into varying levels of complexity, from basic knowledge and comprehension to advanced evaluation and creation.
• Bloom’s Taxonomy was originally published in 1956, and the Taxonomy was modified each year for 16 years after it was first published.
• After the initial cognitive domain was created, which is primarily used in the classroom setting, psychologists devised additional taxonomies to explain affective (emotional) and psychomotor (physical) learning.
• In 2001, Bloom’s initial taxonomy was revised to reflect how learning is an active process and not a passive one.
• Although Bloom’s Taxonomy is met with several valid criticisms, it is still widely used in the educational setting today.

Take a moment and think back to your 7th-grade humanities classroom. Or any classroom from preschool to college. As you enter the room, you glance at the whiteboard to see the class objectives.

“Students will be able to…” is written in a red expo marker. Or maybe something like “by the end of the class, you will be able to…” These learning objectives we are exposed to daily are a product of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a system of hierarchical models (arranged in a rank, with some elements at the bottom and some at the top) used to categorize learning objectives into varying levels of complexity (Bloom, 1956).

You might have heard the word “taxonomy” in biology class before, because it is most commonly used to denote the classification of living things from kingdom to species.

In the same way, this taxonomy classifies organisms, Bloom’s Taxonomy classifies learning objectives for students, from recalling facts to producing new and original work.

Bloom’s Taxonomy comprises three learning domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Within each domain, learning can take place at a number of levels ranging from simple to complex.

Development of the Taxonomy

Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist and the chair of the committee of educators at the University of Chicago.

In the mid 1950s, Benjamin Bloom worked in collaboration with Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl to devise a system that classified levels of cognitive functioning and provided a sense of structure for the various mental processes we experience (Armstrong, 2010).

Through conducting a series of studies that focused on student achievement, the team was able to isolate certain factors both inside and outside the school environment that affect how children learn.

One such factor was the lack of variation in teaching. In other words, teachers were not meeting each individual student’s needs and instead relied upon one universal curriculum.

To address this, Bloom and his colleagues postulated that if teachers were to provide individualized educational plans, students would learn significantly better.

This hypothesis inspired the development of Bloom’s Mastery Learning procedure in which teachers would organize specific skills and concepts into week-long units.

The completion of each unit would be followed by an assessment through which the student would reflect upon what they learned. 

The assessment would identify areas in which the student needs additional support, and they would then be given corrective activities to further sharpen their mastery of the concept (Bloom, 1971).

This theory that students would be able to master subjects when teachers relied upon suitable learning conditions and clear learning objectives was guided by Bloom’s Taxonomy.

The Original Taxonomy (1956)

Bloom’s Taxonomy was originally published in 1956 in a paper titled Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956).

The taxonomy provides different levels of learning objectives, divided by complexity. Only after a student masters one level of learning goals, through formative assessments, corrective activities, and other enrichment exercises, can they move onto the next level (Guskey, 2005).

Cognitive Domain (1956)

Concerned with thinking and intellect.

The original version of the taxonomy, the cognitive domain, is the first and most common hierarchy of learning objectives (Bloom, 1956). It focuses on acquiring and applying knowledge and is widely used in the educational setting.

This initial cognitive model relies on nouns, or more passive words, to illustrate the different educational benchmarks.

Because it is hierarchical, the higher levels of the pyramid are dependent on having achieved the skills of the lower levels.

The individual tiers of the cognitive model from bottom to top, with examples included, are as follows:

Knowledge : recalling information or knowledge is the foundation of the pyramid and a precondition for all future levels → Example : Name three common types of meat. Comprehension : making sense out of information → Example : Summarize the defining characteristics of steak, pork, and chicken. Application : using knowledge in a new but similar form → Example : Does eating meat help improve longevity? Analysis : taking knowledge apart and exploring relationships → Example : Compare and contrast the different ways of serving meat and compare health benefits. Synthesis : using information to create something new → Example : Convert an “unhealthy” recipe for meat into a “healthy” recipe by replacing certain ingredients. Argue for the health benefits of using the ingredients you chose as opposed to the original ones. Evaluation : critically examining relevant and available information to make judgments → Example : Which kinds of meat are best for making a healthy meal and why?

Types of Knowledge

Although knowledge might be the most intuitive block of the cognitive model pyramid, this dimension is actually broken down into four different types of knowledge:

• Factual knowledge refers to knowledge of terminology and specific details.
• Conceptual knowledge describes knowledge of categories, principles, theories, and structures.
• Procedural knowledge encompasses all forms of knowledge related to specific skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.
• Metacognitive knowledge defines knowledge related to thinking — knowledge about cognitive tasks and self-knowledge (“Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy,” n.d.).

However, this is not to say that this order reflects how concrete or abstract these forms of knowledge are (e.g., procedural knowledge is not always more abstract than conceptual knowledge).

Nevertheless, it is important to outline these different forms of knowledge to show how it is more dynamic than one may think and that there are multiple different types of knowledge that can be recalled before moving onto the comprehension phase.

And while the original 1956 taxonomy focused solely on a cognitive model of learning that can be applied in the classroom, an affective model of learning was published in 1964 and a psychomotor model in the 1970s.

The Affective Domain (1964)

Concerned with feelings and emotion.

The affective model came as a second handbook (with the first being the cognitive model) and an extension of Bloom’s original work (Krathwol et al., 1964).

This domain focuses on the ways in which we handle all things related to emotions, such as feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasm, motivations, and attitudes (Clark, 2015).

From lowest to highest, with examples included, the five levels are:

Receiving : basic awareness → Example : Listening and remembering the names of your classmates when you meet them on the first day of school. Responding : active participation and reacting to stimuli, with a focus on responding → Example : Participating in a class discussion. Valuing : the value that is associated with a particular object or piece of information, ranging from basic acceptance to complex commitment; values are somehow related to prior knowledge and experience → Example : Valuing diversity and being sensitive to other people’s backgrounds and beliefs. Organizing : sorting values into priorities and creating a unique value system with an emphasis on comparing and relating previously identified values → Example : Accepting professional ethical standards. Characterizing : building abstract knowledge based on knowledge acquired from the four previous tiers; value system is now in full effect and controls the way you behave → Example : Displaying a professional commitment to ethical standards in the workplace.

The Psychomotor Domain (1972)

Concerned with skilled behavior.

The psychomotor domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy refers to the ability to physically manipulate a tool or instrument. It includes physical movement, coordination, and use of the motor-skill areas. It focuses on the development of skills and the mastery of physical and manual tasks.

Mastery of these specific skills is marked by speed, precision, and distance. These psychomotor skills range from simple tasks, such as washing a car, to more complex tasks, such as operating intricate technological equipment.

As with the cognitive domain, the psychomotor model does not come without modifications. This model was first published by Robert Armstrong and colleagues in 1970 and included five levels:

1) imitation; 2) manipulation; 3) precision; 4) articulation; 5) naturalization. These tiers represent different degrees of performing a skill from exposure to mastery.

Two years later, Anita Harrow (1972) proposed a revised version with six levels:

1) reflex movements; 2) fundamental movements; 3) perceptual abilities; 4) physical abilities; 5) skilled movements; 6) non-discursive communication.

This model is concerned with developing physical fitness, dexterity, agility, and body control and focuses on varying degrees of coordination, from reflexes to highly expressive movements.

That same year, Elizabeth Simpson (1972) created a taxonomy that progressed from observation to invention.

The seven tiers, along with examples, are listed below:

Perception : basic awareness → Example : Estimating where a ball will land after it’s thrown and guiding your movements to be in a position to catch it. Set : readiness to act; the mental, physical, and emotional mindsets that make you act the way you do → Example : Desire to learn how to throw a perfect strike, recognizing one’s current inability to do so. Guided Response : the beginning stage of mastering a physical skill. It requires trial and error → Example : Throwing a ball after observing a coach do so, while paying specific attention to the movements required. Mechanism : the intermediate stage of mastering a skill. It involves converting learned responses into habitual reactions so that they can be performed with confidence and proficiency → Example : Successfully throwing a ball to the catcher. Complex Overt Response : skillfully performing complex movements automatically and without hesitation → Example : Throwing a perfect strike to the catcher’s glove. Adaptation : skills are so developed that they can be modified depending on certain requirements → Example : Throwing a perfect strike to the catcher even if a batter is standing at the plate. Origination : the ability to create new movements depending on the situation or problem. These movements are derived from an already developed skill set of physical movements → Example : Taking the skill set needed to throw the perfect fastball and learning how to throw a curveball.

The Revised Taxonomy (2001)

In 2001, the original cognitive model was modified by educational psychologists David Krathwol (with whom Bloom worked on the initial taxonomy) and Lorin Anderson (a previous student of Bloom) and published with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment .

This revised taxonomy emphasizes a more dynamic approach to education instead of shoehorning educational objectives into fixed, unchanging spaces.

To reflect this active model of learning, the revised version utilizes verbs to describe the active process of learning and does away with the nouns used in the original version (Armstrong, 2001).

The figure below illustrates what words were changed and a slight adjustment to the hierarchy itself (evaluation and synthesis were swapped). The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor models make up Bloom’s Taxonomy.

How Bloom’s Can Aid In Course Design

Thanks to Bloom’s Taxonomy, teachers nationwide have a tool to guide the development of assignments, assessments, and overall curricula.

This model helps teachers identify the key learning objectives they want a student to achieve for each unit because it succinctly details the learning process.

The taxonomy explains that (Shabatura, 2013):

• Before you can understand a concept, you need to remember it;
• To apply a concept, you need first to understand it;
• To evaluate a process, you need first to analyze it;
• To create something new, you need to have completed a thorough evaluation

This hierarchy takes students through a process of synthesizing information that allows them to think critically. Students start with a piece of information and are motivated to ask questions and seek out answers.

Not only does Bloom’s Taxonomy help teachers understand the process of learning, but it also provides more concrete guidance on how to create effective learning objectives.

The revised version reminds teachers that learning is an active process, stressing the importance of including measurable verbs in the objectives.

And the clear structure of the taxonomy itself emphasizes the importance of keeping learning objectives clear and concise as opposed to vague and abstract (Shabatura, 2013).

Bloom’s Taxonomy even applies at the broader course level. That is, in addition to being applied to specific classroom units, Bloom’s Taxonomy can be applied to an entire course to determine the learning goals of that course.

Specifically, lower-level introductory courses, typically geared towards freshmen, will target Bloom’s lower-order skills as students build foundational knowledge.

However, that is not to say that this is the only level incorporated, but you might only move a couple of rungs up the ladder into the applying and analyzing stages.

On the other hand, upper-level classes don’t emphasize remembering and understanding, as students in these courses have already mastered these skills.

As a result, these courses focus instead on higher-order learning objectives such as evaluating and creating (Shabatura, 2013). In this way, professors can reflect upon what type of course they are teaching and refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy to determine what they want the overall learning objectives of the course to be.

Having these clear and organized objectives allows teachers to plan and deliver appropriate instruction, design valid tasks and assessments, and ensure that such instruction and assessment actually aligns with the outlined objectives (Armstrong, 2010).

Overall, Bloom’s Taxonomy helps teachers teach and helps students learn!

Critical Evaluation

Bloom’s Taxonomy accomplishes the seemingly daunting task of taking the important and complex topic of thinking and giving it a concrete structure.

The taxonomy continues to provide teachers and educators with a framework for guiding the way they set learning goals for students and how they design their curriculum.

And by having specific questions or general assignments that align with Bloom’s principles, students are encouraged to engage in higher-order thinking.

However, even though it is still used today, this taxonomy does not come without its flaws. As mentioned before, the initial 1956 taxonomy presented learning as a static concept.

Although this was ultimately addressed by the 2001 revised version that included active verbs to emphasize the dynamic nature of learning, Bloom’s updated structure is still met with multiple criticisms.

Many psychologists take issue with the pyramid nature of the taxonomy. The shape creates the false impression that these cognitive steps are discrete and must be performed independently of one another (Anderson & Krathwol, 2001).

However, most tasks require several cognitive skills to work in tandem with each other. In other words, a task will not be only an analysis or a comprehension task. Rather, they occur simultaneously as opposed to sequentially.

The structure also makes it seem like some of these skills are more difficult and important than others. However, adopting this mindset causes less emphasis on knowledge and comprehension, which are as, if not more important, than the processes towards the top of the pyramid.

Additionally, author Doug Lemov (2017) argues that this contributes to a national trend devaluing knowledge’s importance. He goes even further to say that lower-income students who have less exposure to sources of information suffer from a knowledge gap in schools.

A third problem with the taxonomy is that the sheer order of elements is inaccurate. When we learn, we don’t always start with remembering and then move on to comprehension and creating something new. Instead, we mostly learn by applying and creating.

For example, you don’t know how to write an essay until you do it. And you might not know how to speak Spanish until you actually do it (Berger, 2020).

The act of doing is where the learning lies, as opposed to moving through a regimented, linear process. Despite these several valid criticisms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, this model is still widely used today.

What is Bloom’s taxonomy?

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model of cognitive skills in education, developed by Benjamin Bloom in 1956.

It categorizes learning objectives into six levels, from simpler to more complex: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. This framework aids educators in creating comprehensive learning goals and assessments.

Bloom’s taxonomy explained for students?

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a framework that helps you understand and approach learning in a structured way. Imagine it as a ladder with six steps.

1. Remembering : This is the first step, where you learn to recall or recognize facts and basic concepts.

2. Understanding : You explain ideas or concepts and make sense of the information.

3. Applying : You apply what you’ve understood to solve problems in new situations.

4. Analyzing : At this step, you break information into parts to explore understandings and relationships.

5. Evaluating : This involves judging the value of ideas or materials.

6. Creating : This is the top step where you combine information to form a new whole or propose alternative solutions.

Bloom’s Taxonomy helps you learn more effectively by building your knowledge from simple remembering to higher levels of thinking.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives . New York: Longman.

Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching . Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/

Armstrong, R. J. (1970). Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives .

Berger, R. (2020). Here’s what’s wrong with bloom’s taxonomy: A deeper learning perspective (opinion) . Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-heres-whats-wrong-with-blooms-taxonomy-a-deeper-learning-perspective/2018/03

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay , 20, 24.

Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47–63). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Clark, D. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy : The affective domain. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/Bloom/affective_domain.html

Guskey, T. R. (2005). Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, Research, and Implications . Online Submission.

Harrow, A.J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain . New York: David McKay Co.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41 (4), 212-218.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain . New York: David McKay Co.

Lemov, D. (2017). Bloom’s taxonomy-that pyramid is a problem . Retrieved from https://teachlikeachampion.com/blog/blooms-taxonomy-pyramid-problem/

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy . (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy/

Shabatura, J. (2013). Using bloom’s taxonomy to write effective learning objectives . Retrieved from https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/

Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the Psychomotor domain , Illinois University. Urbana.

Further Reading

• Kolb’s Learning Styles
• Bloom’s Taxonomy Verb Chart
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20, 24.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Montessori Method of Education

55 Learning Objectives Examples

Learning objectives are explicit statements that clearly express what learners should be able to comprehend, perform or experience by the end of a course or instructional period (Adams, 2015).

They are fundamental to the process of educational planning and instructional design, acting as vehicles that drive both teaching and learning strategies.

Importantly, they ensure coherence and a clear focus, differentiating themselves from vague educational goals by generating precise, measurable outcomes of academic progress (Sewagegn, 2020).

I have front-loaded the examples in this article for your convenience, but do scroll past all the examples for some useful frameworks for learning how to write effective learning objectives.

Learning Objectives Examples

Learning objectives for internships.

For more, see: List of SMART Internship Goals

Learning Objectives for Presentations

For More: See This Detailed List of Communication Objectives Examples

Learning Objectives for Kindergarten

Taxonomies to assist in creating objectives.

Various taxonomies are available to educators as guides in formulating potent learning objectives, with three prominent ones provided below.

1. The SMART Framework for Learning Objectives

The SMART framework helps you to construct clear and well-defined learning objectives. It stands for: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (Doran, 1981).

• Specific objectives are ones that are straightforward, detailing the what, why, and how of the learning process. For example, an objective that states “Improve mental multiplication skills” is less specific than “Multiply two-digit numbers mentally within two minutes with 90% accuracy.” When I was learning to write learning objectives at university, I was taught to always explicitly describe the measurable outcome .
• Measurable objectives facilitate tracking progress and evaluating learning outcomes. An objective such as “Write a 500-word essay on the causes of World War II, substantiated with at least three academic sources” is measurable, as both word count and the number of sources can be quantified.
• Achievable objectives reflect realistic expectations based on the learner’s potential and learning environment, fostering motivation and commitment.
• Relevant objectives correspond with overarching educational goals and learner’s needs, such as an objective to “identify and manage common software vulnerabilities” in a cybersecurity course.
• Time-bound objectives specify the duration within which the learning should take place, enhancing management of time and resources in the learning process.

2. Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s taxonomy outlines six cognitive levels of understanding – knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Adams, 2015). Each are presented below:

Each level is demonstrated below:

Here, we can reflect upon the level of learning and cognition expected of the learner, and utilize the Bloom’s taxonomy verbs to cater the learning objectives to that level.

3. Fink’s Taxonomy

Another helpful resource for creating objectives is Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning , which emphasizes different dimensions of learning, including foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn (Marzano, 2010):

• Foundational knowledge refers to the basic information learners must understand to progress with the topic at hand—for instance, understanding color theory before painting a canvas.
• Application gives learners real-world instances for applying the knowledge and skills they’ve cultivated, such as using Adobe Photoshop in a design project after a graphic design lecture.
• Integration enables learners to make interdisciplinary connections between the new knowledge and various fields of study or areas of life—for example, a business student applying economic theory to understand market dynamics in biotechnology.
• Human dimension involves personal and social implications of learning, i.e., how the learners see themselves and interact with others in light of the new knowledge.
• Caring challenges learners to develop new feelings, interests, or values aligned with the course outcomes, like fostering a conservation mindset in an environmental science course.
• Learning how to learn encourages learners to become self-directed and resourceful, enabling them to cultivate learning strategies, skills, and habits that make them lifelong learners, such as using reflective journals or peer reviews (Marzano, 2010).

An example of an objective that uses Fink’s framework could be:

“Learners will conduct a small research project about a famous physicist (foundational knowledge), incorporating class teachings (application) and their own interpretations (integration), then present to the class (human dimension), reflecting on how the physicist’s work affects them personally (caring) and how the project grew their understanding of research methods (learning how to learn).”

Why are Learning Objectives Important?

Effective learning objectives serve to streamline the learning process, creating a clear path for both teachers and learners.

The role of objectives in education mirrors the use of a roadmap on a journey; just as marking out stops and landmarks can facilitate navigation, learning objectives can clarify the trajectory of a course or lesson (Hall, Quinn, & Gollnick, 2018).

On a practical level, imagine teaching a course about climate change. Without explicit learning objectives (like understanding how carbon footprints contribute to global warming), learners could easily veer off track, misinterpreting the main focus.

Learning objectives also act as an anchor during assessments, providing a yardstick against which progress and performance can be gauged (Orr et al., 2022). When students are graduating high school, for example, it’s likely they’ll be assessed on some form of standardized testing to measure if the objectives have been met.

By serving as a guide for content selection and instructional design, learning objectives allow teachers to ensure coursework is suitably designed to meet learners’ needs and the broader course’s objectives (Li et al., 2022). In situations where time is crucial, such as military training or emergency medicine, keeping the focus narrow and relevant is crucial.

Tips and Tricks

1. tips on integrating learning objectives into course design.

Learning objectives serve as a foundation in the designing of a course.

They provide a structured framework that guides the incorporation of different course components, including instructional materials, activities, and assessments (Li et al., 2022).

When designing a photography course, for example, learning objectives guide the selection of appropriate theoretical content (like understanding aperture and shutter speed), practical activities (like a field trip for landscape photography), and the assessment methods (like a portfolio submission).

Just like how research objectives shape the methodology a research study will take, so too will learning objectives shape the teaching methods and assessment methods that will flow-on from the path set out in the overarching learning objectives.

2. Tips on Assessing and Revising your Learning Objectives Regularly

Learning objectives are not set in stone; they demand constant review and refinement.

In the light of feedback from learners, instructors or external bodies (like accreditation agencies), learning outcomes, and advancements in pedagogy, learning objectives may need to be revised (Orr et al., 2022).

Think about a programming course where new frameworks or libraries are regularly introduced; in such cases, the learning objectives would need to be updated to reflect these emerging trends. This provides opportunities for continual enhancement of the course design, thus fostering an environment of progressive learning and teaching (Sewagegn, 2020).

Teachers should revise their learning objectives every time they re-introduce the unit of work to a new cohort of students, taking into account the learnings and feedback you acquired last time you taught the unit.

Learning objectives, when effectively formulated and implemented, serve as key drivers of successful instruction.

They underscore the importance of clarity, directness, and depth in the learning process, fostering a learning environment designed for optimal learner engagement, progress tracking, and educational outcome (Hall, Quinn, & Gollnick, 2018).

With their expansive role in the educational journey, educators are encouraged to invest time and resourceful thought in crafting and continually refining their classroom objectives (Doran, 1981). Moreover, the use of established taxonomies and attention to characteristics like SMARTness in this process can greatly facilitate this endeavor.

As the backbone of well-structured courses, learning objectives deserve the thoughtful consideration and continuous improvement efforts of every dedicated educator. It is our hope that this article has provided insights that will help you bring more clarity, coherence, and effectiveness to your educational planning.

Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives.  Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ,  103 (3), 152. doi: https://doi.org/10.3163%2F1536-5050.103.3.010

Doran, G. T. (1981). There’sa SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives.  Management review ,  70 (11), 35-36.

Hall, G. E., Quinn, L. F., & Gollnick, D. M. (2018).  Introduction to teaching: Making a difference in student learning . Sage Publications.

Li, Y., Rakovic, M., Poh, B. X., Gaševic, D., & Chen, G. (2022). Automatic Classification of Learning Objectives Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy.  International Educational Data Mining Society .

Marzano, R. J. (2010).  Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives . Solution Tree Press.

Orr, R. B., Csikari, M. M., Freeman, S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2022). Writing and using learning objectives.  CBE—Life Sciences Education ,  21 (3). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-04-0073

Sewagegn, A. A. (2020). Learning objective and assessment linkage: its contribution to meaningful student learning.  Universal Journal of Educational Research ,  8 (11), 5044-5052.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Learning Objectives

What is a Learning Objective?

Bloom (1956) suggests a six-stage hierarchy of cognitive competencies :

• Knowledge - Students can collect and restate information.
• Comprehension - Students can interpret and understand information.
• Application - Students can apply information to solve problems.
• Analysis - Students can organize and analyze information.
• Synthesis - Students can create information from information.
• Evaluation - Students can compare and assess information and ideas.

In an update to Bloom, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) argue that students should be able to:

Undergraduate research experiences that engage students in the scientific method require and develop skills that can be mapped to Bloom's taxonomy and require students to do the tasks that Anderson and Krathwohl suggest they should be able to. And rather than offering isolated experiences with each of the steps of the scientific method, their relationships to one another become transparent, furthering one's understanding of what it means to "do science." Before going headfirst into an undergraduate research experience, you want to consider how directly and deeply you want students engaged in each step of the research process. This will help you determine where you place an undergraduate research experience in your curriculum or course, or if you do undergraduate research outside of the classroom instead (perhaps as part of a summer research experience).

As an example, if your key learning objectives are related to synthesis and evaluation, you may want the culminating project in your class to be a research paper and, if time is limited, you may want to supply students with the background literature and data for the project rather ask them to collect it themselves. If you have an opportunity to supervise the project as an independent study, though, you may have time to work on each of the six competencies more intensely and can involve your student just as seriously in tasks like reviewing the literature and collecting data as in evaluating evidence.

Krathwohl et al (1964) suggests a hierarchy of affective competencies , and you may consider forming some affective learning objectives as well. These competencies are:

• Receiving - Students can notice and tolerate ideas.
• Responding - Students can respond to ideas by investing in them in some way.
• Valuing - Students can demonstrate to others that they value some ideas.
• Organizing - Students can connect that value to existing ones.
• Characterizing - Students' actions are consistent with the internalized values.

Developing Learning and Content Objectives

Here are some tips for writing cognitive learning objectives from the Higher Education Academy.

« Previous Page       Next Page »

• Campus Living Laboratory
• ConcepTests
• Conceptual Models
• Cooperative Learning
• Earth History Approach
• Experience-Based Environmental Projects
• First Day of Class
• Gallery Walks
• Indoor Labs
• Interactive Lecture Demonstrations
• Interactive Lectures
• Investigative Case Based Learning
• Just in Time Teaching
• Mathematical and Statistical Models
• Peer Review
• Role Playing
• Service Learning
• Socratic Questioning
• Spreadsheets Across the Curriculum
• Studio Teaching in the Geosciences
• Teaching Urban Students
• Teaching with Data
• Teaching with GIS
• Teaching with Google Earth
• ...click to see 28 more...
• Teaching with Visualizations
• Undergraduate Research
• What is Undergraduate Research?
• Why Use Undergraduate Research Experiences?
• How To Engage Undergraduates in Research
• Forms of Undergraduate Research Experiences
• Determine Project Needs
• Set Expectations
• Structure the Critical Elements
• Provide the Right Support
• Assess the Experience
• Further the Undergraduate Research Experience
• References and Resources
• Using an Earth System Approach

• About this Site
• Accessibility

Citing and Terms of Use

Material on this page is offered under a Creative Commons license unless otherwise noted below.

Show terms of use for text on this page »

Show terms of use for media on this page »

• None found in this page
• Last Modified: February 28, 2024
• Short URL: https://serc.carleton.edu/48175 What's This?

Shifting Learning Objectives Into Personalized Student Goals

Research on effective teaching and learning shows that when students set and monitor their own learning goals, it significantly narrows achievement gaps. While teacher-written objectives are important for clarity, when these objectives are re-written as personal statements, they evolve from what a teacher needs to teach to what students want to learn .

This free, 5-page brief gives insights and strategies for teachers on how to shift beyond teacher-written learning objectives and toward student-defined learning goals and success criteria:, unlocking the “so that” factor: sparking students’ internal motivation to learn by helping them connect lessons to their own aspirations. “i am learning this so that i can…”, using five guiding principles in your classrooms that help foster a collaborative learning environment for students that encourages their growth, honors their voice, resonates with their lives, and deepens their learning., this brief is part of mcrel’s expert teaching series, which outlines shifts in practices and perspectives that teachers can make to advance student learning success., to view and download a free copy of this paper, please complete the information below and click “submit.”.

We will also add you to our email list so that you can learn more about this topic and other resources from McREL.

About McREL.org

McREL is a non-profit, non-partisan education research and development organization that since 1966 has turned knowledge about what works in education into practical, effective guidance and training for teachers and education leaders across the U.S. and around the world.

Previous Post Use cross-curricular connections to increase lesson relevancy

Next post designing better professional learning with the brain in mind.

• McREL CATALOG
• ABOUT McREL
• Who We Are—McREL Staff
• McREL Catalog
• School & System Improvement
• Balanced Leadership
• Classroom Instruction That Works
• Curiosity Works
• Curriculum & Standards
• Personnel Evaluation
• Power Walkthrough
• Student Learning That Sticks
• Research Partnerships
• Research Reports
• White Papers
• Ed-Tech Evaluation
• PD Courses & Events
• FREE RESOURCES
• Subscribe to Free Resources
• Client-Partner Spotlights
• Compendium of Standards

Search McREL.org

© 2024 McREL International. @2023 Mcrel International | Powered by NEWMEDIA

• About McREL
• Equal Employment Opportunity
• Learning That Sticks
• Multilingual and English Learners
• Research & Evaluation
• Free Videos
• In-Person Events
• for Teachers
• for Principals
• REL Pacific
• CC Region 11
• CC Region 12

• Weill Cornell Medicine

Importance of Learning Objectives

Writing learning objectives.

Learning objectives ideally describe a direction for the student acquiring new knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Every decision you make about your lecture or small group session should depend on what you hope your students will be able to do as a result of your session.

Why are learning objectives important? As an expert in your field, you probably already have a good idea of what you want your students to learn during your time with them.  Taking a few minutes before you finalize your session content and activities to capture those objectives is a worthwhile investment – in the development of successful learning experiences for your students and in your own development as an educator. 

More specifically, learning objectives

• Force you to look again .  The exercise of writing or rewriting objectives prompts you to examine content you may have been teaching in much the way way for years, but with a new perspective.
• Help you trim the fat .  Allowing your learning objectives to drive your content or activity can result in discovering extraneous content that may be trimmed or an activity that doesn’t quite hit the target and needs tweaking.  You may simply be inspired to reorganize a meandering PowerPoint with your learning objectives as an outline.
• Can make your session “fall in line.”   Once written, learning objectives can confirm a solid alignment or organization of learning activities and assessments or suggest that a fresh pass at your design of the learning experience is needed.  For example, they are invaluable in helping you create your quiz questions – indeed, a quiz should measure whether your objectives have been met.
• Can provide opportunities to present a more rich and challenging learning experience for your students . Your learning objectives will illuminate the order, whether higher or lower, to which you are asking your students to think, process, and learn during your session.
• Be a guide for your students .  When displayed to students, learning objectives set student expectations, guide their learning processes, and help them focus their study time for the upcoming exam(s).

How do I write good learning objectives?  

Every learning opportunity can have its own objectives, from a multi-session unit to a single lecture or assignment.  

• Good learning objectives are clear, concise, and specific statements describing a student’s behaviors. Only a few short bullet points per activity should be necessary.
• Learning objective template :  “At the end of this (session, lecture, activity, etc.), students will be able to ____ (insert an action verb ).
• Good learning objectives are specific and measurable statements stating what specifically students be able to do differently after your instructional activity (i.e., not statements on what the instructor will do) 

Objectives should not contain such vague outcomes as "Students will understand…" or "Students will know…" This is not to say that students should never simply acquire knowledge, but you will be more likely to measure this knowledge when students "Describe," "List," or "Identify" that knowledge.   For example:

After the lecture on “bioenergetics,” students should be able to           

            Weak Use of Verbs

Understand the uncoupling of the electron transport chain from ATP synthesis and the physiological consequences

            Improved

Describe the uncoupling of the electron transport chain from ATP synthesis and the physiological consequences

            Note: Understanding , per se, cannot be measured.  Words such as know,     understand, and learn are open to many interpretations and thus not truly      measurable.

• Good learning objectives are actual outcomes and not simply activities students will complete or things you will do as an instructor. For example, "Students will write a research paper…" is the start of an assignment, not an objective for learning.

Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy (1956) is very helpful in writing learning objectives for the cognitive (knowing), psychomotor (doing: skill), and affective (attitude) domains. Much of the medical school curriculum focuses on the cognitive domain, which Bloom categorized into 6 levels, starting from simple recall or recognition of facts (knowledge) level, through increasingly more complex and abstract mental levels, to the highest order (evaluation.) 

Here are some examples of action verbs that represent each of the six cognitive levels, from lowest to highest, which you should consider using: 

Knowledge:   define, list, name, order, recognize, recall, label

Comprehension: classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, report, review

Application:   apply, choose, demonstrate, illustrate, practice, solve, use

Analysis:   analyze, appraise, calculate, compare/contrast, differentiate, diagram

Synthesis: arrange, assemble, construct, design, formulate, prepare, write

Evaluation: assess, argue, judge, predict, rate, evaluate, score, choose

• Example of a learning objective at various cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy:

After the lecture on dizziness, students will be able to

            Lower level

            Name the five causes of dizziness (lower level of cognition; simple recall)

            Higher Level   

            Given a patient case description , determine the three most likely causes of dizziness (higher level of cognition). 

Note: Ideally, a quiz question would present a clinical case and ask students to determine the cause of dizziness (i.e., apply knowledge) rather than just recognize causes from a five-option multiple-choice question.

For more information on Bloom’s taxonomy, including action verbs for writing learning objectives, see http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

• Good learning objectives are realistic and doable for the learner’s level.  

They should include a range of actions appropriate to the students' year and incoming knowledge and the expected competencies for the course. For example, when students are exposed to a new body of knowledge, you will probably instruct them to "Define" or "Recall," but, over time, they should be moved to "Analyze" and "Interpret."

• Good learning objectives are consistent with the goals of the course/curriculum.

Office of Admissions 445 East 69th Street Room 104 New York, NY 10021 (646) 962-4931 [email protected]

Office of Medical Education 1300 York Avenue, Room C-118 New York, NY 10065 (212) 746-1050

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Insight from Biology Program Learning Outcomes: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

• Noelle Clark
• Jeremy L. Hsu

Schmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866

Search for more papers by this author

*Address correspondence to: Jeremy L. Hsu ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

Learning goals and objectives are a key part of instruction, informing curricular design, assessment, and learning. These goals and objectives are also applied at the programmatic level, with program learning outcomes (PLOs) providing insight into the skills that undergraduate biology programs intend for their students to master. PLOs are mandated by all major higher education accreditation agencies and play integral roles in programmatic assessment. Despite their importance, however, there have not been any prior attempts to characterize PLOs across undergraduate biology programs in the United States. Our study reveals that many programs may not be using PLOs to communicate learning goals with students. We also identify key themes across these PLOs and differences in skills listed between institution types. For example, some Vision & Change core competencies (e.g., interdisciplinary nature of science; connecting science to society; quantitative reasoning) are highlighted by a low percentage of programs, while others are shared more frequently between programs. Similarly, we find that biology programs at 4-year institutions likely emphasize PLOs relating to computational skills and research more than at 2-year institutions. We conclude by discussing implications for how to best use PLOs to support student learning, assessment, and curricular improvements.

INTRODUCTION

Learning goals and objectives, which convey the intended knowledge, skills, and processes that a student should be able to accomplish at the end of a given curricular unit, play a critical role across disciplines in both teaching and learning ( Marzano, 2010 ). For instance, a commonly used approach for creating curricula is backward design, wherein instructors first identify the learning goals and objectives for students before designing and implementing lessons that promote student mastery of such learning goals and objectives ( Reynolds and Kearns, 2017 ; Matsuda, 2020 ; Neiles and Arnett, 2021 ). Learning goals and objectives also play important roles for asssessment, with instructors encouraged to align items on assessment instruments (e.g., quizzes and tests) to learning goals and objectives in order to determine student progress and mastery of learning goals and objectives ( Torrance, 2007 ; Combs et al. , 2008 ; Towns, 2010 ).

In addition to informing instructional practices, learning goals and objectives can also play major roles in shaping student learning. For instance, the addition of learning goals and objectives to a simulated set of readings and activities in a biology class improved student learning ( Sana et al. , 2020 ), and learning goals and objectives have also been shown to influence student study strategies in biology and other disciplines ( Osueke et al. , 2018 ; Stanton et al. , 2019 ; Barnard et al. , 2021 ). This work has demonstrated that students find utility in using learning goals and objectives to shape their studying and likewise that such learning objectives can positively impact student learning ( Simon and Taylor, 2009 ; Fata-Hartley, 2011 ; Minbiole, 2016 ; Osueke et al. , 2018 ).

Given the importance of learning goals and objectives for both instructors and students, there has been a substantial amount of literature examining best practices on writing and implementing learning goals and objectives in the classroom ( Simon, 2006 ; Marzano, 2010 ; Redelius et al. , 2015 ; Chatterjee and Corral, 2017 ). Within biology, there have been several calls for instructors to make learning goals and objectives explicit and to align assessments with them ( Allen and Tanner, 2006 ; Ewell et al. , 2022 ).

However, nearly all the literature on learning goals and objectives is situated at the course level, which includes work examining course learning goals and outcomes or the impact of learning outcomes for a specific class activity. In contrast, there has been almost no work that has examined the use of learning outcomes at the program and degree level. These program learning outcomes (PLOs) convey goals, objectives, competencies, and outcomes for students enrolled in a given degree program, with course learning outcomes that should align with and support student development of these PLOs ( Orr et al. , 2022a , b ). PLOs can be used to create and update curricular maps, design and implement assessment plans, and refine curriculum and co-curricular supports based on the results of assessment ( Towns, 2010 ; Johnson and Envick, 2014 ; Denicoló, 2019 ). In addition, PLOs communicate the main goals of a degree to current and prospective students of the program, as well as instructors, staff, parents, and other stakeholders involved in the degree program ( Praslova, 2010 ).

To what extent are PLOs publicly available for undergraduate biology programs in the United States?

What skills, competencies, and knowledge are undergraduate biology programs listing as goals in their PLOs, and are there differences by institution type (as defined by Carnegie Classifications)?

What is the cognitive level of the skills and competencies that undergraduate biology programs list in their PLOs, and are there differences by institution type?

Our work is therefore designed to provide a first characterization of the skills and competencies listed as PLOs across undergraduate biology programs in the United States. In addition, we situate our work in the context of Vision & Change , a national call for transforming undergraduate biology education ( American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 ). This report included a list of core concepts and competencies for biology programs, with multiple guides and tools developed based upon these principles ( Brownell et al. , 2014 ; Brancaccio-Taras et al. , 2016 ; Couch et al. , 2019 ; Clemmons et al. , 2020 ). Our study thus provides insight into how well biology PLOs reflect the framework proposed in Vision & Change. In addition, we also examine whether there are differences in PLOs between institution types, given that past work has found different norms between institution types, differences in course modalities offered (e.g., proportion of online courses), and also differences in what criteria biology programs at different institution types use in hiring faculty ( Fleet et al. , 2006 ; Varty, 2016 ; Tibbetts et al. , 2018 ).

Use of Terminology: Learning Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes

The terms “learning goals,” “objectives,” and “outcomes” are all used in the literature, though these terms are nuanced and can convey different meanings. For instance, learning goals tend to be broader, more general statements of a given purpose of a course or program, while learning objectives and outcomes present more specific, actionable skills or results ( Hartel and Foegeding, 2004 ). However, there remains ambiguity on the definitions and nuances between these terms, and there is no consensus among the major higher education accreditation agencies in the United States concerning the terminology used ( Mitchell and Manzo, 2018 ; see Table 5 ). We also acknowledge that there likely exists variation among institutions and biology programs in how they refer to and conceptualize these program learning goals, outcomes, and objectives. However, we choose to use the term “program learning outcome” or “PLO” in our work to refer to any set of goals, objectives, or competencies that an undergraduate biology degree program lists for its degree. We choose this term because of its use in past literature ( Denicoló, 2019 ) and because the term “outcome” is the term most commonly referenced among the major accreditation bodies ( Table 5 ). Similarly, we incorporate a broad, inclusive definition of this term, given our goals of characterizing what undergraduate biology programs are listing and communicating to students and faculty about different programs’ intended aims.

Positionality

Statements of positionality are increasingly common in education research in order to acknowledge the impact that the identities of the authors may play in the research process ( Secules et al. , 2021 ). We thus include a summary of our previous experiences and identities that may inform and shape our perspectives on this work. N.C. is an undergraduate biology student who currently serves as a supplemental instructor for introductory biology, where she has worked with course learning objectives, which has shaped her teaching strategies. J.L.H. is a pre-tenure faculty member in biology who was trained in evolutionary genetics but is now active in biology education research. J.L.H. has incorporated learning objectives into his courses and currently serves as chair of his university’s assessment committee, where he helps review PLOs and assessment reports across the university.

Sampling of Colleges and Universities

We first conducted a stratified random sampling scheme of colleges and universities in the United States, using the Carnegie Classifications to ensure that diverse institutions were represented in our sample ( McCormick and Zhao, 2005 ). For the initial creation of a codebook (see “Identification of Undergraduate Biology Programs”), we first generated a random list of 61 colleges and universities with undergraduate biology programs, chosen as an initial, manageable subset that would allow both authors to collaboratively examine and discuss these PLOs. In addition, we ensured even representation across the four basic Carnegie Classification categories (doctoral universities, master’s colleges and universities, baccalaureate colleges, and associate’s colleges). Given the potential variation within each of these categories, we further substratified to ensure that there was likewise roughly equal coverage across each of the Carnegie Classification subcategories (e.g., doctoral universities are subdivided into universities with very high research activity, high research activity, or doctoral/professional universities). The Carnegie Classification provides a separate category of baccalaureate/associate’s colleges, which we grouped with baccalaureate colleges, and we did not sample from any institutions listed under special focus or from Tribal Colleges and Universities, given the unique status and/or nontraditional focuses of the schools in these categories. Following the development of our initial codebook and our check for interrater reliability (described in the Analysis of key themes in PLO section below), we continued our stratified random sampling until we had sampled 305 colleges and universities with undergraduate biology programs. This number was chosen for several reasons: first, it represents more than 10% of all colleges and universities in the United States listed in the sampled Carnegie Classification categories ( n = 2817), providing us a broad, representative snapshot of all colleges and universities for our exploratory study. In addition, we compared the themes that emerged from these PLOs from our initial sampling subset ( n = 61) with our final sample ( n = 305). This comparison determined that there were no additional themes emerging in the larger subset and similarly very little variance in the results from the smaller to larger sample size, suggesting that we had reached theoretical saturation ( Guetterman, 2015 ).

Identification of Undergraduate Biology Programs

For each institution sampled, we searched for degree-granting undergraduate biology programs. This was done by initiating a Web search of the institution name plus certain keywords, such as “biology major,” “biology program,” and “biology degree.” We included any institution with a general biology degree program, which encompassed both bachelor’s and associate’s degrees. Some institutions had both degrees in a subdiscipline of biology (e.g., a degree in molecular and cellular biology) and a degree in general biology. To ensure consistency in our comparisons of PLOs, we limited our comparison to PLOs of general biology programs. If an institution did not have a biology program, we excluded it from our data and randomly selected another institution from within the same Carnegie Classification to replace that institution, thus ensuring that our sample set of 305 institutions each has a general undergraduate biology program. Overall, only eight (2.6%) of the initially sampled institutions did not have general biology programs. Similarly, if an institution offered both a bachelor of science and a bachelor of arts in biology, we only included the PLOs from the bachelor of science degree.

Identification and Availability of PLOs

For each program in our data set, we recorded the type of degree awarded for the undergraduate biology program (i.e., bachelor’s or associate’s) and then searched for its biology PLOs. This was done by first visiting the home page of the biology department or program, if available, and searching for PLOs listed either on the home page or on associated pages linked to from the home page. If no PLOs were identified on these pages, we conducted a general Web search with the name of the institution and degree program followed by a keyword search for PLOs. Finally, if this still did not yield any results, we searched the institutions’ academic or course catalogues for PLOs, given that catalogues are a common place for academic policies, degree requirements, and descriptions (and thus PLOs) for programs ( Vavolizza, 2010 ). We categorized the availability of PLOs based on whether PLOs were posted on the program or department home page, available only in the catalogue, or not publicly available at all.

Analysis of Key Themes in PLOs

We first read through and analyzed the PLOs for the initial subset of undergraduate biology programs. Both authors independently read and inductively determined key commonalities of skills, competencies, and goals between the PLOs and themes that emerged from the data, following the principles of grounded theory ( Bingham and Witkowsky, 2021 ). The two authors then discussed and generated a consensus codebook. Given that several colleges and universities included PLOs that were modeled from the Vision & Change core competencies ( AAAS, 2011 ), we expanded our codebook to include all six of the core competencies listed in Vision & Change in order to allow us to characterize alignment of biology PLOs with these core competencies. However, we did not include the Vision & Change core concepts, which convey specific topics, rather than skills. These core concepts thus naturally align less well with PLOs, and we noted that few programs listed specific biological concepts in their PLOs, limiting the ability for us to examine alignment with Vision & Change core concepts.

Next, a random subset of 25 universities was selected to check for interrater reliability. Sixty-nine PLOs were identified across 10 universities in this subset, with the remaining programs not having any publicly available PLOs. We verified interrater reliability with this subset of 69 PLOs, calculating Cohen’s kappa using the program ReCal2 ( Freelon, 2013 ). Cohen’s kappa is a measure of interrater reliability (how closely two coders using a consensus codebook agree on the same code for a set of responses) that starts with the percent agreement (the percent of time that the two coders agree) and then adjusts for the percent chance that such agreement occurs through random chance ( Cohen, 1960 ; Warrens, 2015 ). Cohen’s kappa was 0.78, indicating substantial agreement ( Landis and Koch, 1977 ). In addition, we noted that colleges and universities often had more than one PLO with a similar theme, with the same code applied to more than one PLO at that institution. Given our research question of characterizing the skills and competencies listed in each institution’s PLOs, we merged all identified themes across each institution’s PLOs. Next, we checked interrater reliability by comparing the independently generated codes across PLOs per institution. We similarly identified substantial agreement with the interrater reliability (Cohen’s kappa = 0.70). Given these high levels of interrater reliability, one coder (N.C.) coded the remainder of the institutions’ PLOs. In addition, we conducted a post hoc check of interrater reliability with another 30 randomly selected PLOs, again identifying high interrater reliability (Cohen’s kappa = 0.70).

Identifying Cognitive Levels of PLOs

In addition to characterizing the themes of the PLOs, we also examined whether each PLO was written to present lower- (LOC) or higher-order cognitive skills (HOC). We draw upon Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domains as a framework; this taxonomy presents a hierarchical view of six types of thinking: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation ( Bloom, 1956 ; Krathwohl, 2002 ; Adams, 2015 ). These levels are arranged to go from LOC to HOC skills: the first two levels (knowledge and comprehension) are generally recognized as LOC skills, while the last three levels (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) are recognized as HOC skills ( Zoller, 1993 ). The third level (application), in contrast, is often considered a “transition” between LOC and HOC skills ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ). Indeed, past work that has attempted to categorize cognitive skills in biology classes using Bloom’s taxonomy has needed to examine specific assessment questions in depth to determine whether questions that fall under the “application” level in Bloom’s taxonomy are assessing a LOC or HOC skill, depending on whether or not the question requires both conceptual and procedural knowledge or whether it is an “algorithmic” application question that does not require conceptual information ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ; Freeman and Parks, 2010 ; Arneson and Offerdahl, 2018 ).

Our goal was to distinguish PLOs written with LOC skills from those written with HOC skills; we did not have access to any additional information (e.g., specific course assessments) to determine how instructors or students were interpreting each PLO. As such, we only categorized whether each PLO was conveying a LOC or HOC skill, without further subdivision into the specific Bloom’s levels. However, we relied on Bloom’s taxonomy to guide our decision making. We first discussed the differences between LOC and HOC skills and the definitions provided for each Bloom’s taxonomy level ( Bloom, 1956 ). Next, we read, discussed, and categorized by consensus a random subset of 30 PLOs, using Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework for deciding whether each PLO conveyed a LOC or HOC skill. During this discussion, we decided to categorize a PLO that conveyed an application-level objective as a LOC skill, given that we did not have any further information to distinguish whether instructors and students viewed that PLO as a LOC or HOC skill. However, we acknowledge that future work will need to examine more data to explore how instructors and students are interpreting these PLOs, given the possibility that such application-level PLOs may be referring to either LOC or HOC skills. Next, we independently coded another 89 PLOs, roughly three times the size of the initial subset. We identified substantial agreement (Cohen’s kappa = 0.73). Given the high level of interrater reliability, one coder (N.C.) proceeded to classify the cognitive levels of the remaining PLOs. We again conducted a post hoc check of interrater reliability using 30 randomly selected PLOs, finding high interrater reliability (Cohen’s kappa = 0.78). A list of sample PLOs and their classification (as LOC or HOC) is included in Supplemental Table 1.

Our random sampling of colleges and universities spanned different types of institutions ( Table 1 ) as well as multiple degree types ( Table 2 ). Most programs offered bachelor of science in biology degrees, with fewer than 5% of programs only offering a bachelor of arts but not a bachelor of science in biology. More than one-fourth of our sampled programs offered associate of science degrees in biology, with the remaining 11.1% of schools not listing a degree type or providing an alternative degree type, such as associate of arts degree in biology.

To What Extent Are PLOs Publicly Available for Undergraduate Biology Programs in the United States?

We identified that slightly more than half of undergraduate biology programs had publicly available PLOs, with approximately 45% of programs not listing any of their PLOs publicly ( Table 3 ). There were no differences in availability of PLOs based on institute type or by degree type (Pearson’s chi-square test). In sum, we identified 904 individual PLOs across these institutions (an average of 5.7 PLOs per degree).

What Skills, Competencies, and Knowledge Are Undergraduate Biology Programs Listing as Goals in Their PLOs, and Are There Differences by Institution Type (as Defined by Carnegie Classifications)?

We identified 17 different themes from the PLOs ( Table 4 ). Nearly all programs (90.0%) indicated that students should be able to learn specific biological principles and concepts, the most common theme, followed by 72.5% of schools including PLOs with students learning about the process of science ( Table 4 and Figure 1 ). Similarly, 65.0% of institutions indicated that their degree goal included students learning how to communicate science, the only other theme that was shared across more than 50% of institutions. While all six Vision & Change core competencies were identified within the PLOs, their frequencies varied. For instance, while the process of science was included in most schools’ PLOs, only 3.8% explicitly listed modeling and simulation, the lowest frequency of the six Vision & Change core competencies. In addition, we note that some of the themes may tangentially overlap. For example, one of the themes that emerged was the importance of conducting research, highlighted by a fifth of institutions. Similarly, a fifth of institutions had PLOs describing the goal of working in a field-based setting. Fieldwork can be an integral component of research projects, and some of these PLOs discussed a goal of having students conduct research in a field-based setting. These PLOs were therefore coded for both themes. However, other PLOs only noted field-based technical skills without discussing research (e.g. “Students will practice proper usage of scientific instrumentation and will improve techniques both in the laboratory and in the natural environment”) and thus were only coded for fieldwork.

FIGURE 1. Frequency of each PLO theme across institutions.

In addition, we compared the themes to see whether they varied across both institution type (as defined by Carnegie Classification) and degree type (associate’s vs. bachelor’s degrees). We identified six themes that varied in frequency between either institution type or degree type (Pearson’s chi-square test, p < 0.05; Figure 2 ). For instance, a greater percentage of undergraduate bachelor’s programs indicated biology concepts and research skills in their PLOs as compared with associate’s programs ( Figure 2 ). Similarly, no associate’s or baccalaureate colleges had computational skills in their PLOs, while this was included in approximately 20% of master’s and doctoral programs’ PLOs. Finally, a greater percentage of bachelor’s programs indicated fieldwork-based skills or scientific communication abilities in their PLOs as compared with associate’s programs.

FIGURE 2. Comparison of frequency of themes by (A) institution type and (B) degree type. Only themes that are significantly different by institution type are included here. Significance (Pearson's chi-square test): * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 level.

What Is the Cognitive Level of the Skills and Competencies That Undergraduate Biology Programs List in Their PLOs, and Are There Differences by Institution Type?

Approximately half (51.3%) of the PLOs examined were LOC skills, with the other 48.7% representing PLOs with HOC skills. When compared by institution type, doctoral universities showed a higher proportion of LOC PLOs compared with HOC PLOs ( p < 0.05, Pearson’s chi-square test; Figure 3 ). There were no differences in frequency of PLOs with different cognitive levels based on degree type.

FIGURE 3. Comparison of PLOs by HOC versus LOC skills.

Our results provide the first characterization of PLOs across undergraduate biology programs in the United States, and this is the first study we are aware of that examines a broad spectrum of PLOs in any science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) discipline. For instance, past work examining PLOs in STEM has been limited to an introspective look at how one undergraduate physics program used PLOs to guide its assessment process and curricular reform ( Denicoló, 2019 ) and a case study that examined similar processes of writing PLOs, assessing student gains for each PLO, and making curricular changes in four undergraduate chemistry programs ( Towns, 2010 ). By providing a comprehensive look at PLOs across a broad subset of biology programs, our work reveals the extent of PLOs being publicly available, providing insight into how PLOs may be used for teaching, learning, and assessment. Similarly, we also characterize what skills and competencies biology programs are including in their PLOs.

Importance of PLOs to Drive Curriculum Development and Assessment and Curricular Improvements

Our work identifies that nearly half of all undergraduate biology programs do not have PLOs listed publicly on any of their program webpages or in academic course catalogues. This is concerning for several reasons, and we call on biology programs to ensure that PLOs are thoughtfully written for the program and are widely available to prospective and current students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders in the process.

First, we note the critical importance of PLOs in the creation of curricular maps for a biology degree. Curricular maps show the progression of learning for each PLO across different courses in a program and allow faculty to identify potential gaps in students’ learning when examining this progression of learning and comparing it with the required and elective courses offered by a program ( Joyner, 2016 ; Metzler et al. , 2017 ). Similarly, instructors should rely on the curricular map and PLOs to design and revise their courses, with course learning outcomes aligned with and supporting the PLOs. While it is possible that the PLOs may be disseminated internally within these programs, the lack of publicly posted PLOs calls into question the accessibility, availability, and use of the PLOs for these programs. It is possible that many of these programs may not be using or regularly examining PLOs and curricular maps for their programs.

PLOs are also critical for the assessment process, wherein programs collect data to examine student progression and mastery of each PLO ( Towns, 2010 ; Metzler et al. , 2017 ; Denicoló, 2019 ). These data can identify areas of improvement and inform curricular and co-curricular changes to strengthen student learning, retention, and graduation rates ( Shupe, 2007 ). PLOs are central to this assessment process; without clearly identified PLOs, programs will likely struggle to incorporate an effective assessment plan, identify areas of strength and weaknesses within the program, and make appropriate changes. Similarly, interpreting multiple courses’ learning outcomes together will be more challenging in the absence of unifying PLOs for the degree, again hindering instructional changes and improvement.

We also note the importance of PLOs for conveying to current and prospective students, as well as prospective employers, what goals and skills each biology program teaches and incorporates in its curriculum. Given that past work has found that showing specific course-level learning objectives is useful for students and can improve student learning in biology ( Armbruster et al. , 2009 ; Brooks et al. , 2014 ; Sana et al. , 2020 ), we speculate that continued alignment of PLOs to course learning objectives, combined with regular reminders to students of their PLOs and conveying how the courses they are taking fit in with these PLOs, may have positive impacts on student learning, affect, and motivation, and may even influence students’ choice of courses within the curriculum. Similarly, past work has identified that PLOs play a key role in communicating to prospective students what an institution and program value, and what their standards are ( Shupe, 2007 ). Thus, having publicly available and accessible PLOs can help prospective students make more informed decisions about their choice of college or university, or even their choice of major, and will help ensure that students are aware of the goals and learning outcomes of a program before enrolling. Finally, past work in other disciplines has identified that there are sometimes gaps between PLOs and skills listed by employers, suggesting that PLOs can play an important role for communicating recent graduates’ skills to potential employers ( Rhew et al. , 2019 ).

Situating the Role of PLOs within Institutional Accreditation

The critical role of PLOs is also acknowledged within the standards of each of the seven regional accreditation agencies for colleges and universities in the United States recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education (Council for Higher Education Accreditation). All institutions listed in the Carnegie Classifications must be accredited by one of these organizations, and each of the organizations lists PLOs or equivalent as a requirement for degree programs ( Table 5 ).

a Requirements are excerpted from published, publicly available accreditation criteria from each accreditation agency.

We note that each of these accreditation agencies requires PLOs as well as assessment of the PLOs. Additionally, most of the agencies state that programs should “publish” PLOs, implying that such PLOs must be publicly available and readily accessible to students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders. It is possible that some of the biology programs we examined may not be in compliance with their accreditation agency’s standards and may either not have PLOs or may not be publishing their PLOs. While we did not align each institution with its accreditation agency, past work has found similar levels of noncompliance. For example, a survey of more than 800 provosts or chief academic officers at accredited institutions in the United States revealed that more than a fourth of the respondents’ respective institutions did not have any college- or university-wide learning outcomes ( Kuh and Ewell, 2010 ). A similar survey was conducted of provosts or chief academic officers of member institutions of the American Association of Colleges and Universities. This survey showed that 28% of surveyed institutions were not conducting assessment of learning outcomes across the curriculum, with more than a third of surveyed institutions (35%) acknowledging that they did not have defined PLOs for each of their programs ( Hart Research Associates, 2009 ).

Taken together, these data indicate that there are likely a significant number of undergraduate biology programs that may not have any PLOs, may not be posting them publicly, or may not be undertaking significant efforts at examining curricular maps and conducting assessment. We urge every undergraduate biology program to establish PLOs for the degree, if they do not already exist, to ensure that these PLOs are publicly accessible and readily available, and to establish aligned curricular maps and comprehensive assessment plans to best support learning and assessment. We also note that half of the undergraduate biology programs we examined that did publicly post PLOs only had them accessible in an academic course catalogue, and not on the departmental or program webpage. The placement of PLOs in a catalogue likely limits their visibility, as prospective students are more likely to read about a department and program on their webpages, and we anticipate that current students would similarly rely more on program-specific webpages and documents rather than the academic course catalogues. In addition, given the importance of aligning course learning outcomes to PLOs, we also urge instructors to convey the alignment of course learning outcomes to PLOs by placing PLOs on course websites (e.g., home pages on learning management systems) and syllabi.

Characterizing Undergraduate Biology PLOs

We also characterized the range of skills, competencies, and goals that undergraduate biology programs listed in their PLOs. Unsurprisingly, we identified that the most common theme in PLOs is having students demonstrate their mastery of biological content knowledge, followed by students being able to think through and apply the process of science and know how to communicate scientifically. There was no other skill or competency that was shared in the majority of institutions’ PLOs, indicating that there is wide variability in what undergraduate biology programs include in their PLOs.

Indeed, we identify 17 themes across these PLOs and highlight a few significant points. First, we identified some PLOs focused on specific lab skills, such as the ability to use instrumentation or perform specific techniques, while other PLOs instead focused on independent research and the process of conducting such research. The number of institutions with PLOs encompassing lab techniques was more than double that of institutions that had PLOs that included independent research and research skills (48.1% and 20.6%, respectively). Multiple calls, including Vision & Change , have emphasized the importance of developing students’ research skills and how such research can help students increase their abilities to think critically ( National Research Council, 2003 ; AAAS, 2011 ). Given this, undergraduate biology programs may wish to reflect on their choice of PLOs and the relative importance of both developing lab-based technical skills and using those skills to develop research competency. We urge programs to provide supports and opportunities for students to conduct independent research or participate in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) and to ensure that their PLOs reflect the importance of these skills.

We also similarly note a difference in several themes by institution type. For instance, far fewer associate’s colleges listed research skills in their PLOs as compared with other institution types. This may be because faculty at 2-year institutions are not expected to conduct research and thus are usually not given time or resources to do so ( Schinske et al. , 2017 ). As such, there may be lower emphasis in the curriculum and fewer opportunities for students to conduct independent research. There are similarly lower frequencies of PLOs at 2-year institutions encompassing fieldwork-based skills or computational skills. We speculate that this difference may be due to faculty at 2-year institutions having higher teaching loads and potentially lower amounts of institutional resources ( Schinske et al. , 2017 ), which may serve as barriers for implementing courses that involve fieldwork or computational biology. However, more work—such as surveys or interviews with department chairs and the faculty in biology programs who contributed to the writing of PLOs—is needed to elucidate the reasons for these differences.

In addition, we identified that more than half of the PLOs were written to describe LOC skills, despite Vision & Change and other national calls emphasizing the need to promote critical thinking and associated HOC skills ( National Research Council, 2003 ; AAAS, 2011 ). These results match surveys of course learning objectives conducted in other STEM disciplines: for example, nearly 90% of learning outcomes across psychology programs were found to encompass LOC skills ( Bumpus et al. , 2022 ). Taken together, these results indicate that programs may still be emphasizing or teaching LOC skills, consistent with work that has found that many introductory biology courses are focusing on LOC skills and that upper-division biology classes may still retain this focus on LOC skills ( Momsen et al. , 2010 ; Cleveland et al. , 2017 ). This has led to recent calls for biology programs to develop program objectives that focus on HOC skills ( Cleveland et al. , 2017 ), and we echo such calls for undergraduate biology programs to reflect on their PLOs and determine whether there are ways to integrate more HOC skills into their PLOs and curricula. Our results also indicated that doctoral universities had a significantly higher frequency of PLOs with LOC skills than the other types of institutions. More work is needed to explore the reasons behind this difference. However, we note that there are both typically larger class sizes (as well as total numbers of students in programs) and an increased expectation of research productivity from faculty at doctoral universities ( Tanner and Allen, 2006 ). As such, we speculate that differences in size, the different emphases on teaching, and potentially different amounts of pedagogical training among faculty at the different types of institutions may be contributing to this difference.

Our results show that all six core competencies from Vision & Change were represented in our sample of PLOs. However, there was major variation in the frequency of these competencies ( Table 4 ), suggesting uneven coverage across institutions. For instance, fewer than 10% of institutions incorporated any PLOs that conveyed the abilities to conduct modeling and simulation, and fewer than 20% included PLOs addressing science and society or the interdisciplinary nature of science (see Table 4 for examples of these PLOs). These results suggest that there is an urgent need for programs to examine whether their curricula are addressing each of the core concepts and competencies suggested in Vision & Change and to examine whether programs are implementing the evidence-based recommendations listed in Vision & Change.

Implications and Suggestions for the Biology Education Community

Provide more resources and training to create PLOs, curricular maps, and robust assessment structures. Our work demonstrated that nearly half of all undergraduate biology programs may not have PLOs, aligning with past work finding high frequencies of colleges and universities that do not have learning objectives or assessment plans. We call on colleges and universities to provide more training and resources for faculty to develop such PLOs, curricular maps, and assessment protocols, an urgent need also identified by provosts ( Kuh and Ewell, 2010 ). For example, organizations like the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessments ( www.learningoutcomesassessment.org ) can provide an invaluable set of resources for faculty and administrators. We similarly see an opportunity for the biology education community to develop freely available resources tailored specifically for our discipline to support creation and review of PLOs, curricular maps, and assessment protocols. For instance, the new CBE-LSE Evidence-Based Teaching Guide on learning objectives ( Orr et al. , 2022a , b ) provides an examination of the literature surrounding learning objectives, and provides instructors several resources for developing course learning outcomes. Similar resources for developing PLOs, building and examining curricular maps, and conducting assessment, may be useful.

Review existing PLOs to ensure that they convey intended learning outcomes and align with national standards. We note that half of the PLOs were written as a LOC skill and speculate that programs and faculty, if queried, would likely intend for their students to gain HOC skills. Given this potential disconnect, programs should review their existing PLOs to ensure that they accurately reflect the intended levels of learning and identify opportunities to incorporate more HOC skills throughout the curriculum. Similarly, we saw uneven coverage of the Vision & Change core competencies across institutions’ PLOs. We urge programs to consider the recommendations of Vision & Change , and use developed tools like the BioCore Guide ( Brownell et al. , 2014 ) and BioSkills Guide ( Clemmons et al. , 2020 ) to check whether these concepts and competencies are being introduced and taught in the curriculum, and revise PLOs if necessary. We highlight these steps in more detail in our Recommendations for writing, revising, and using PLOs section below.

Support opportunities for students to develop research skills, field-based skills, and computational skills. We found unequal coverage of PLOs that emphasized research skills, field-based skills, and computational skills, which were represented in particularly low frequencies across the PLOs for 2-year institutions. We urge the biology education community to develop additional curricula and resources for programs to support students’ development of these skills in order to best meet the needs of students. For example, there have been recent calls highlighting the growing importance of computational skills in biology ( Rubinstein and Chor, 2014 ; Stefan et al. , 2015 ; Wright et al. , 2020 ). Similarly, Vision & Change and other national calls have highlighted the importance of integrating undergraduate research experiences in biology ( AAAS, 2011 ), given the many affective and cognitive benefits for students who participate in research experiences ( Lopatto, 2007 ; Russell et al. , 2007 ; Jones et al. , 2010 ; Adedokun et al. , 2013 ; Auchincloss et al. , 2014 ; Dolan, 2017 ; Schinske et al. , 2017 ). Thus, additional resources for programs and faculty to develop these skills (e.g., promoting accessible professional development for implementation of CUREs or workshops that provide an overview of key computational skills and instructional strategies for teaching such skills) may be beneficial.

Recommendations for Writing, Revising, and Using PLOs

In addition to these recommendations for the biology education community, we also provide a general set of steps here for chairs, program directors, and faculty looking to write new PLOs or revise existing ones. We note that there have been very few empirical studies examining best practices for learning objectives at the program level, with most work instead focusing on course and specific learning objectives. The CBE-LSE Evidence-Based Teaching Guide on writing and using learning objectives provides a useful summary of this past work ( Orr et al. , 2022a , b ). However, many of the same principles for writing course-level learning objectives likely apply to writing and revising PLOs, and we draw upon recommendations provided in Vision & Change and other calls for reform.

Use Vision & Change and Aligned Resources

First, we urge programs to use the Vision & Change core concepts and competencies to guide the revision and writing process of PLOs. The development of the core concepts and competencies in Vision & Change was designed as a “consensus framework” for undergraduate biology programs’ curricula and conveys foundational knowledge and skills for biology majors ( AAAS, 2011 ). We encourage biology programs to use these concepts and competencies when writing or revising PLOs, echoing the call from Vision & Change to use the core concepts and competencies as a foundation for writing PLOs relevant for the programs’ students and aligned with institutional goals and themes. In addition, the report also includes a table showing the alignment of different disciplinary practices with the core competencies to further guide programs’ use of these core competencies.

There are several other resources aligned with the Vision & Change core concepts and competencies that biology programs can use when writing, revising, and assessing PLOs. First, programs can use the BioCore and BioSkills Guides, both of which were developed through an iterative process that involved surveying biology instructors nationwide ( Brownell et al. , 2014 ; Clemmons et al. , 2020 ). The BioCore Guide offers a specific list of principles aligned with the Vision & Change core concepts, while the BioSkills Guide provides a list of measurable PLOs aligned with the Vision & Change core competencies, sample course-level learning outcomes that align with each of the possible PLOs, and examples of classroom activities for each course learning outcome ( Brownell et al. , 2014 ; Clemmons et al. , 2020 ). There are also validated assessments available that are aligned with these core concepts. For instance, GenBio-MAPS is designed as an assessment that can be deployed longitudinally to measure the change in students’ mastery across the core concepts in a general biology program ( Couch et al. , 2019 ). Similar tools are available for molecular biology, physiology, and ecology/evolution ( Smith et al. , 2019 ).

In addition to these guides and tools, existing initiatives dedicated to supporting undergraduate biology programs’ reform efforts can help with developing and/or examining PLOs. For instance, the Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) is a group sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the National Institute for General Medical Sciences whose mission is to promote the evidence-based practices highlighted in Vision & Change ( Dou, 2018 ). PULSE offers a set of Vision & Change rubrics that programs can use to evaluate their curricula; the rubric includes several items that guide faculty toward reflecting on their PLOs and assessment efforts ( Brancaccio-Taras et al. , 2016 ; Branchaw et al. , 2020 ). In addition, PULSE offers workshops and site visits from PULSE Ambassadors, which can both support programs looking to establish or revise PLOs or make curricular changes based on assessment of PLOs.

Ensure That PLOs Are Clear, Actionable, and Measurable

PLOs should convey a set of skills or competencies that a student should be able to accomplish following completion of the undergraduate biology degree ( Orr et al. , 2022a ). As such, PLOs should encompass a specific set of skills that are observable or measurable. Faculty can use Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework for identifying appropriate verbs for each Bloom’s level for PLOs (e.g., for a list of possible verbs for PLOs that are aligned with Bloom’s levels, see Towns, 2010 ). We encourage programs to emphasize HOC skills (and thus verbs aligned with the appropriate Bloom’s level) when writing these PLOs, given that our work identified that there are many existing PLOs that cover LOC skills. In addition, we note that there are some commonly used words that may not be clear or actionable. For example, there is no consensus on what cognitive level the word “understand” conveys when used in learning objectives, making it challenging to design appropriate assessments for any learning objective that states a student should “understand” something ( Hsu et al ., 2021 ). Thus, we encourage faculty, instructors, and chairs to ensure that all PLOs use more specific, actionable verbs that describe a skill that can be directly assessed.

Align Course-Level Learning Objectives with PLOs and All Assessments with These Learning Outcomes

Once PLOs are established, programs should discuss the PLOs with their instructors to ensure alignment of course-level learning objectives with PLOs. PLOs serve as one of the broadest levels of learning objectives and should encompass a nested set of course-level learning outcomes that align with each of the PLOs ( Orr et al. , 2022a ). Similarly, instructors should have specific instructional learning objectives that align with different course learning outcomes. Thus, PLOs serve as a key part of the hierarchical nature of learning outcomes, wherein instructional learning objectives align with course learning objectives, which in turn align with PLOs (which may correspondingly align with institutional goals and learning outcomes).

Assessments should likewise be aligned with each of these learning objectives. For example, at the course level, instructors should check that each assessment question aligns with a specific instructional learning objective and a course learning objective. Assessments used to measure student progress and mastery of PLOs should also be aligned with the specific skills and competencies that the PLO states. The PULSE rubrics ( Brancaccio-Taras et al. , 2016 ; Branchaw et al. , 2020 ) serve as a useful resource for programs to evaluate their use of PLOs and assessments, as they provide additional guidelines to facilitate alignment of PLOs, course learning outcomes, and assessments. In addition, the CBE-LSE Evidence-Based Teaching Guide on learning objectives offers further recommendations for how instructors can use learning objectives, many of which can apply to both course-level learning objectives and PLOs ( Orr et al. , 2022a , b ).

Ensure That PLOs Are Shared Extensively with All Stakeholders and Used to Improve Student Learning

Our results showed that many colleges and universities may have PLOs but may not be sharing them with students, faculty, and staff, and that many programs do not put such PLOs on their departmental home pages. We urge every biology program to clearly communicate these PLOs with all stakeholders to improve teaching and learning and to ensure that PLOs are used to guide teaching, learning, and assessment. For instance, programs may ask instructors to list PLOs on their course webpages and syllabi and show the alignment of course learning objectives with such PLOs. In addition, programs should regularly be reviewing curricular maps, alignment of course learning outcomes with the PLOs, and assessment data to identify opportunities to improve curriculum and co-curricular supports. PLOs and the course-level learning objectives that align with such PLOs should serve as a foundation for any curricular decisions. Similarly, assessments of such PLOs and course-level learning outcomes should be used to examine student progression and mastery of learning objectives and to identify opportunities to make curricular and co-curricular changes to better support student learning.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations of our work. First, we sampled institutions to ensure even coverage across the different institutional types. However, we note that these institutional types, on average, enroll different numbers of students. Our sampling scheme thus may not be representative of all undergraduate biology majors’ experiences. Second, we only examined publicly available PLOs, and it is possible that some programs have PLOs that are posted internally. Similarly, we were not able to gain insight into how programs apply these PLOs for their curricular design and assessment, which would require feedback from faculty and access to curricular maps and assessment reports. Future work is needed to examine how programs design and implement PLOs across their curricula, the impact of PLOs on course learning outcomes and instructional activities, and how faculty and students perceive and are influenced by such PLOs.

We also note that an undergraduate biology program listing a particular skill or competency on a PLO does not necessarily mean that the program is teaching or emphasizing that PLO. It is possible, for example, that faculty in some undergraduate biology programs have not examined their PLOs recently or have not used curricular maps to inform their teaching, leading to a lack of alignment between the enacted curricula and the PLOs, which only represent the intended learning outcomes. Indeed, past work has highlighted how there can often be disconnects between what an instructor lists as learning objectives and what is actually taught and assessed in a course ( Clemmons et al. , 2022 ). More work is needed to examine alignment of course learning outcomes with PLOs across a range of institutions to provide insight into the fidelity of such PLOs.

Finally, we acknowledge that there is great variation within institutions at each level of Carnegie Classification and that there are likely many cultural, institutional, and societal factors that may influence each undergraduate biology program’s mission, values, and PLOs. We were not able to account for these factors in our work, and future work that relies on surveys and interviews of the chairs, deans, and/or faculty who wrote the PLOs is needed to explore this variation and factors that shape the choice of PLOs for each program.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Desiree Forsythe and Kate Hill for invaluable feedback on this project. N.C. was supported by the Schmidtern program, Chapman University’s Schmid College summer undergraduate research program.

• Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges . ( 2014 ). Eligibility requirements for accreditation . Retrieved December 22, 2022, from https://accjc.org/wp-content/uploads/Eligibility-Requirements-for-Accreditation.pdf Google Scholar
• Adams, N. E. ( 2015 ). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives . Journal of the Medical Library Association , 103 (3), 152–153. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Adedokun, O. A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkham, L. L., & Burgess, W. D. ( 2013 ). Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: Mediating effects of research self-efficacy . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 50 (8), 940–951. Google Scholar
• Allen, D., & Tanner, K. ( 2006 ). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 5 (3), 197–203. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-06-0168 Link ,  Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science . ( 2011 ). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A view for the 21st century . Retrieved February 25, 2022, from https://visionandchange.org/about-vc-a-call-to-action-2011 Google Scholar
• Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. ( 2009 ). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 8 (3), 203–213. doi: 10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Arneson, J. B., & Offerdahl, E. G. ( 2018 ). Visual literacy in Bloom: Using Bloom’s taxonomy to support visual learning skills . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (1), ar7. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-08-0178 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I. , … & Dolan, E. L. ( 2014 ). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 13 (1), 29–40. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Barnard, M., Whitt, E., & McDonald, S. ( 2021 ). Learning objectives and their effects on learning and assessment preparation: Insights from an undergraduate psychology course . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (5), 673–684. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1822281 Google Scholar
• Bingham, A. J., & Witkowsky, P. ( 2021 ). Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis . In Vanover, C.Mihas, P.Saldana, J. (Eds.), Analyzing and interpreting qualitative data: After the interview (pp. 133–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. ( 1956 ). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals . Handbook I: Cognitive Domain . New York, NY: Longmans. Google Scholar
• Brancaccio-Taras, L., Pape-Lindstrom, P., Peteroy-Kelly, M., Aguirre, K., Awong-Taylor, J., Balser, T. , … & Zhao, J. ( 2016 ). The PULSE Vision & Change Rubrics, Version 1.0: A valid and equitable tool to measure transformation of life sciences departments at all institution types . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (4), ar60. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-12-0260 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Branchaw, J. L., Pape-Lindstrom, P. A., Tanner, K. D., Bissonnette, S. A., Cary, T. L., Couch, B. A. , … & Brownell, S. E. ( 2020 ). Resources for teaching and assessing the Vision and Change biology core concepts . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 19 (2), es1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-11-0243 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Brooks, S., Dobbins, K., Scott, J. J. A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R. I. ( 2014 ). Learning about learning outcomes: The student perspective . Teaching in Higher Education , 19 (6), 721–733. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2014.901964 Google Scholar
• Brownell, S. E., Freeman, S., Wenderoth, M. P., & Crowe, A. J. ( 2014 ). BioCore Guide: A tool for interpreting the core concepts of Vision and Change for biology majors . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 13 (2), 200–211. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0233 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Bumpus, E. C., Vinco, M. H., Lee, K. B., Accurso, J. F., & Graves, S. L. ( 2022 ). The consistency of expectations: An analysis of learning objectives within cognitive assessment course syllabi . Teaching of Psychology , 49 (1), 30–36. doi: 10.1177/0098628320965248 Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, D., & Corral, J. ( 2017 ). How to write well-defined learning objectives . Journal of Education in Perioperative Medicine , 19 (4), E610. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Clemmons, A. W., Donovan, D. A., Theobald, E. J., & Crowe, A. J. ( 2022 ). Using the intended–enacted–experienced curriculum model to map the Vision and Change core competencies in undergraduate biology programs and courses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 21 (1), ar6. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-02-0054 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Clemmons, A. W., Timbrook, J., Herron, J. C., & Crowe, A. J. ( 2020 ). BioSkills Guide: Development and national validation of a tool for interpreting the Vision and Change core competencies . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 19 (4), ar53. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-11-0259 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Cleveland, L. M., McCabe, T. M., & Olimpo, J. T. ( 2017 ). A call for programmatic assessment of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding and higher-order cognitive skills . Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 19 (1). 19.1.30. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1368 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. ( 1960 ). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales . Educational and Psychological Measurement , 20 , 37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104 Google Scholar
• Combs, K. L., Gibson, S. K., Hays, J. M., Saly, J., & Wendt, J. T. ( 2008 ). Enhancing curriculum and delivery: Linking assessment to learning objectives . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 33 (1), 87–102. doi: 10.1080/02602930601122985 Google Scholar
• Couch, B. A., Wright, C. D., Freeman, S., Knight, J. K., Semsar, K., Smith, M. K. , … & Brownell, S. E. ( 2019 ). GenBio-MAPS: A programmatic assessment to measure student understanding of Vision and Change core concepts across general biology programs . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (1), ar1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-07-0117 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Council for Higher Education Accreditation . ( n.d. ). Regional accrediting organizations . Retrieved August 10, 2022, from www.chea.org/regional-accrediting-organizations Google Scholar
• Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. ( 2008 ). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 (4), 368–381. doi: 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Denicoló, G. ( 2019 ). Assessing program learning outcomes: A tale of self-discovery . The Physics Teacher , 57 (1), 47–49. doi: 10.1119/1.5084929 Google Scholar
• Dolan, E. L. ( 2017 ). Undergraduate research as curriculum . Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 45 (4), 293–298. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21070 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Dou, R. ( 2018 ). Review: Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) . American Biology Teacher , 80 (1), 64. doi: 10.1525/abt.2018.80.1.64 Google Scholar
• Ewell, S. N., Cotner, S., Drake, A. G., Fagbodun, S., Google, A., Robinson, L. , … & Ballen, C. J. ( 2022 ). Eight recommendations to promote effective study habits for biology students enrolled in online courses . Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 23 (1), e00260–21. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00260-21 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Fata-Hartley, C. ( 2011 ). Resisting rote: The importance of active learning for all course learning objectives . Journal of College Science Teaching , 40 (3), 36–39. Google Scholar
• Fleet, C. M., Rosser, M. F. N., Zufall, R. A., Pratt, M. C., Feldman, T. S., & Lemons, P. P. ( 2006 ). Hiring criteria in biology departments of academic institutions . BioScience , 56 (5), 430–436. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0430:HCIBDO]2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
• Freelon, D. ( 2013 ). ReCal OIR: Ordinal, interval, and ratio intercoder reliability as a web service . International Journal of Internet Science , 8 (1). Google Scholar
• Freeman, S., & Parks, J. W. ( 2010 ). How accurate is peer grading? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 (4), 482–488. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-03-0017 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Guetterman, T. ( 2015 ). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences . Educational Psychology Papers and Publications , 16 (2). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/263 Google Scholar
• Hart Research Associates . ( 2009 ). Learning and assessment: Trends in undergraduate education . Retrieved August 10, 2022, from aacu.org/membership/documents/2009MemberSurvey_Part1.pdf Google Scholar
• Hartel, R. W., & Foegeding, E. A. ( 2004 ). Learning: Objectives, competencies, or outcomes? Journal of Food Science Education , 3 (4), 69–70. Google Scholar
• Higher Learning Commission . ( n.d. ). Eligibility requirements (CRRT.A.10.010): Policies . Retrieved August 10, 2022, from www.hlcommission.org/Policies/eligibility-requirements.html Google Scholar
• Hsu, J. L., Lo, S. M., & Sato, B. K. ( 2021 ). Defining understanding: Perspectives from biology instructors & biology education researchers . American Biology Teacher , 83 (6), 372–376. doi: 10.1525/abt.2021.83.6.372 Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. E., & Envick, B. R. ( 2014 ). Assessing the learning goal outcomes of an interdisciplinary entrepreneurship cohort program: A comprehensive survey approach . Journal of Entrepreneurship Education , 17 (1), 135–149. Google Scholar
• Jones, M. T., Barlow, A. E. L., & Villarejo, M. ( 2010 ). Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology . Journal of Higher Education , 81 (1), 82–115. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2010.11778971 Google Scholar
• Joyner (Melito), H. S. ( 2016 ). Curriculum mapping: A method to assess and refine undergraduate degree programs . Journal of Food Science Education , 15 (3), 83–100. doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12086 Google Scholar
• Krathwohl, D. R. ( 2002 ). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview . Theory into Practice , 41 (4), 212–218. Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D., & Ewell, P. T. ( 2010 ). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United States . Higher Education Management and Policy , 22 (1), 1–20. doi: 10.1787/hemp-22-5ks5dlhqbfr1 Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. ( 1977 ). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers . Biometrics , 33 (2), 363–374. doi: 10.2307/2529786 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Lopatto, D. ( 2007 ). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 6 (4), 297–306. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Marzano, R. J. ( 2010 ). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives . Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Google Scholar
• Matsuda, T. ( 2020 ). Backward design by setting STEM education goals before designing S-TE-M subjects lessons: A trial in a teacher promotion course . In Bastiaens, T.Marks, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of Innovate Learning Summit 2020 (pp. 117–122). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/218791 Google Scholar
• McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C.-M. ( 2005 ). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification . Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 37 (5), 51–57. Google Scholar
• Metzler, E., Rehrey, G., Kurz, L., & Middendorf, J. ( 2017 ). The aspirational curriculum map: A diagnostic model for action-oriented program review . To Improve the Academy , 36 (2), 156–167. doi: 10.1002/tia2.20062 Google Scholar
• Middle States Commission on Higher Education . ( n.d. ). Standards . Retrieved August 10, 2022, from www.msche.org/standards Google Scholar
• Minbiole, J. ( 2016 ). Improving course coherence & assessment rigor: “Understanding by design” in a nonmajors biology course . American Biology Teacher , 78 (6), 463–470. doi: 10.1525/abt.2016.78.6.463 Google Scholar
• Mitchell, K. M. W., & Manzo, W. R. ( 2018 ). The purpose and perception of learning objectives . Journal of Political Science Education , 14 (4), 456–472. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2018.1433542 Google Scholar
• Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., Wyse, S. A., & Ebert-May, D. ( 2010 ). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 (4), 435–440. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001 Link ,  Google Scholar
• National Research Council . ( 2003 ). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Neiles, K. Y., & Arnett, K. ( 2021 ). Backward design of chemistry laboratories: A primer . Journal of Chemical Education , 98 (9), 2829–2839. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00443 Google Scholar
• New England Commission of Higher Education . ( n.d. ). Standards for accreditation . Retrieved August 10, 2022, from www.neche.org/resources/standards-for-accreditation Google Scholar
• Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities . ( n.d. ). NWCCU 2020 eligibility requirements . Retrieved August 10, 2022, from https://nwccu.org/accreditation/standards-policies/eligibility-requirements Google Scholar
• Orr, R. B., Csikari, M. M., Freeman, S., & Rodriguez, M. C. ( 2022a ). Evidence based teaching guide: Learning objectives . CBE—Life Science Education . Retrieved August 16, 2022, from https://lse.ascb.org/learning-objectives Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Orr, R. B., Csikari, M. M., Freeman, S., & Rodriguez, M. C. ( 2022b ). Writing and using learning objectives . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 21 (3), fe3. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-04-0073 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Osueke, B., Mekonnen, B., & Stanton, J. D. ( 2018 ). How undergraduate science students use learning objectives to study . Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 19 (2). 19.2.30. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1510 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Praslova, L. ( 2010 ). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education . Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability , 22 (3), 215–225. doi: 10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7 Google Scholar
• Redelius, K., Quennerstedt, M., & Öhman, M. ( 2015 ). Communicating aims and learning goals in physical education: Part of a subject for learning? Sport, Education and Society , 20 (5), 641–655. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2014.987745 Google Scholar
• Reynolds, H. L., & Kearns, K. D. ( 2017 ). A Planning tool for incorporating backward design, active learning, and authentic assessment in the college classroom . College Teaching , 65 (1), 17–27. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2016.1222575 Google Scholar
• Rhew, N. D., Black, J. A., & Keels, J. K. ( 2019 ). Are we teaching what employers want? Identifying and remedying gaps between employer needs, accreditor prescriptions, and undergraduate curricular priorities . Industry and Higher Education , 33 (6), 362–369. doi: 10.1177/0950422219874703 Google Scholar
• Rubinstein, A., & Chor, B. ( 2014 ). Computational thinking in life science education . PLoS Computational Biology , 10 (11), e1003897. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003897 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. ( 2007 ). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences . Science , 316 (5824), 548–549. doi: 10.1126/science.1140384 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Sana, F., Forrin, N. D., Sharma, M., Dubljevic, T., Ho, P., Jalil, E., & Kim, J. A. ( 2020 ). Optimizing the efficacy of learning objectives through pretests . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 19 (3), ar43. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-11-0257 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Schinske, J. N., Balke, V. L., Bangera, M. G., Bonney, K. M., Brownell, S. E., Carter, R. S. , … & Corwin, L. A. ( 2017 ). Broadening participation in biology education research: Engaging community college students and faculty . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (2), mr1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-10-0289 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Secules, S., McCall, C., Mejia, J. A., Beebe, C., Masters, A. S. L., Sánchez-Peña, M., & Svyantek, M. ( 2021 ). Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community . Journal of Engineering Education , 110 (1), 19–43. doi: 10.1002/jee.20377 Google Scholar
• Shupe, D. ( 2007 ). Significantly better: The benefits for an academic institution focused on student learning outcomes . On the Horizon , 15 (2), 48–57. doi: 10.1108/10748120710757299 Google Scholar
• Simon, B., & Taylor, J. ( 2009 ). What is the value of course-specific learning goals? Journal of College Science Teaching , 39 (2), 52–57. Google Scholar
• Simon, M. A. ( 2006 ). Key developmental understandings in mathematics: A direction for investigating and establishing learning goals . Mathematical Thinking and Learning , 8 (4), 359–371. doi: 10.1207/s15327833mtl0804_1 Google Scholar
• Smith, M. K., Brownell, S. E., Crowe, A. J., Holmes, N. G., Knight, J. K., Semsar, K. , … & Couch, B. A. ( 2019 ). Tools for change: Measuring student conceptual understanding across undergraduate biology programs using Bio-MAPS assessments . Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 20 (2), 20. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1787 Google Scholar
• Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges . ( 2016 ). In Danver, S. L. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of online education . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved December 22, 2022, from https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/2018PrinciplesOfAcreditation.pdf Google Scholar
• Stanton, J. D., Dye, K. M., & Johnson, M. ( 2019 ). Knowledge of learning makes a difference: A comparison of metacognition in introductory and senior-level biology students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (2), ar24. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-12-0239 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Stefan, M. I., Gutlerner, J. L., Born, R. T., & Springer, M. ( 2015 ). The quantitative methods boot camp: Teaching quantitative thinking and computing skills to graduate students in the life sciences . PLoS Computational Biology , 11 (4), e1004208. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004208 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Tanner, K., & Allen, D. ( 2006 ). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: On integrating pedagogical training into the graduate experiences of future science faculty . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 5 (1), 1–6. doi: 10.1187/cbe.05-12-0132 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., Borman, G. D., & Harackiewicz, J. M. ( 2018 ). Different institutions and different values: Exploring first-generation student fit at 2-year colleges . Frontiers in Psychology , 9 . www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00502 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Torrance, H. ( 2007 ). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning . Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 14 (3), 281–294. doi: 10.1080/09695940701591867 Google Scholar
• Towns, M. H. ( 2010 ). Developing learning objectives and assessment plans at a variety of institutions: Examples and case studies . Journal of Chemical Education , 87 (1), 91–96. doi: 10.1021/ed8000039 Google Scholar
• Varty, A. K. ( 2016 ). Options for online undergraduate courses in biology at American colleges and universities . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (4), ar58. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0075 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Vavolizza, A. M. ( 2010 ). Creating the college catalog: A case study of stakeholder perceptions and organizational decision-making at two private colleges differing in degree of entrepreneurialism . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Google Scholar
• Warrens, M. ( 2015 ). Five ways to look at Cohen’s kappa . Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy , 5 (4), 197. doi: 10.4172/2161-0487.1000197 Google Scholar
• WASC Senior University and College Commission . ( n.d. ). How to become accredited: Procedures manual for eligibility, pre-accreditation (candidacy), and initial accreditation . Retrieved August 10, 2022, from https://wascsenior.app.box.com/s/lmogpr9etew9brgwo92i Google Scholar
• Wright, A. M., Schwartz, R. S., Oaks, J. R., Newman, C. E., & Flanagan, S. P. ( 2020 ). The why, when, and how of computing in biology classrooms . F1000Research , 8 , 1854. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20873.2 Google Scholar
• Zoller, Uri. ( 1993 ). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: Unlikely for HOCS . Journal of Chemical Education , 70 (3), 195. doi: 10.1021/ed070p195 Google Scholar

Submitted: 6 September 2022 Revised: 8 November 2022 Accepted: 2 December 2022

© 2023 N. Clark and J. L. Hsu. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2023 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 4.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0).

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience. Thanks!

• Learning Objectives
• Pedagogical Principles
• Policy on Responsible Conduct of Research and Scholarship
• Teaching Philosophy
• Honors Program
• Major Requirements
• Minor Requirements
• Undergraduate Forms
• PhD Program
• Affiliated Faculty
• PhD Students 
• Visiting Scholars
• Welcome New PhD Students
• Book Series 
• Continental Philosophy Review 
• Faculty Books
• Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
• Past Conferences

Learning Objectives for Our Students

Research   Initiative and Creative Autonomy .We aim to educate students to become self-motivated investigators who undertake their own projects, investigations, and research initiatives. There is no technological, social, political, scientific, or ethical transformation without the will to innovate.

The curriculum delivered by the Philosophy Department is built around  SIX basic pivots :

1. The acquisition and nurturing of basic philosophic skills . One of the main goals of the philosophy curriculum is to seed and enable the honing of skills that are distinct to philosophy, but which are foundational to all forms of knowledge.

• To be able to write an essay that clearly articulates a thesis, with supporting arguments, which anticipates foreseeable objections, and that tries to respond to them in insightful ways.
• To be able to engage, lead, and participate in respectful, reflexive, and critical dialogues. 
• To learn to discern the merits and weaknesses of different philosophical positions. 
• To learn to discern and appreciate the different genres of philosophical writing and how they have enabled various philosophical insights.

2. The History of Philosophy . One cannot properly philosophize without being educated about the history of philosophy. Philosophy is an activity, but it is also a canon—with a history, with figures, movements, traditions, and schools that attest to the historical evolution of thought, thinking, and the self-understanding of human beings. The history of philosophy is surely one of the most illustrative and insightful self-portraits of humanity’s own process of evolution and, some may say, maturation. Through the delivery of synchronically and diachronically constructed historical material, the program is able to practically deliver in each course we offer, the sense of historical development that is integral in all education.

• Great Systems of Philosophy . Students will demonstrate knowledge of the great systems, currents, movements, and traditions of philosophy by being able to define and describe these systems, currents, movements and traditions either orally or in written form. Some of these systems, currents, movements, and traditions may include: empiricism, idealism, nominalism, skepticism, materialism, phenomenology, existentialism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Thomism, Kantianism, and so on. Knowledge of these systems must also reflect knowledge of their respective historical periods: ancient, medieval, renaissance, early modern, 19 th century, contemporary, etc. Our majors are required to take two foundational courses in Ancient and Modern Philosophy (200, 206), which culminate in comprehensive examinations. These courses lead on to an upper division historical sequence (300, 304, 306, 308, 309, 312, 347). 
• Specific Figures in Philosophy . Students will document through written and/or oral analysis and synthesis comfortable and competent specialization in the work of at least one key figure in Western, or non-Western philosophy (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Marx, etc). A seminar on a work or figure is required of our majors (401 or 402).

3. Philosophy in Relation to Other Disciplines . Students should be knowledgeable of the interdependence among philosophy and other disciplines such as aesthetics, the arts, literature, music, life sciences, technology studies, environment science, war and peace studies, psychoanalysis, jurisprudence, linguistics, gender studies, computer science, mathematics, and physics.

• These courses are marked in our offerings as Category III.

4. Cross-cultural and Historical Sensibility . We aim to educate students to be respectful of cultural and historical differences, and who are also sensitive to the fecundity of other cultural and historical philosophical points of views. To learn philosophy is either a voyage across cultures and times, or it is learning to enter into a long dialogue of humanity with itself in many voices, languages, styles and genres.

• Non-Western Philosophy , in which students are provided opportunities to study non-Western systems of thought: Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and specific traditions from Japan, China, Africa, and Latin America (e.g., 111, 340, 344, 472, 473).

5. Logic. Thinking takes place in different logical forms: deduction, induction, inferences, and abduction. Proper argumentation is made up of sound arguments that follow proper laws of deduction or induction. We aim to train students to recognize sound and valid arguments, and to apply the rules of logical argumentation to everyday speech and writing.

• Formal Training in Critical Analytical Techniques . Our majors must pass examinations in formal or informal logic (e.g. 220, 108).

6. Basic problem areas of philosophy . Students must be conversant in some of the foundational questions of philosophy: i.e., What is Knowledge? What is the Truth? What is the Good? What is Justice? What is the Beautiful? What is Punishment? What is Objectivity?

These courses are marked in our offerings as  Category II  and will enable students to address the following sorts of questions:

• Ethical Reasoning . What should we do when faced with a moral dilemma or quandry quandary? What is the good thing to do? What gives an act moral worth? Are there any norms or rules that all human beings can appeal to when adjudicating the merits of one path of action over another? Do we have duties towards animals, nature, the earth? Do humans have intrinsic worth and, if so, why? Are moral norms inscribed in the human soul, as the trajectory of the stars are traced in the sky?
• Political Justice . What makes a society just? Is political power arbitrary and lawless, or does it follow from norms that guide it? Is the political organization of humans something natural or a sign of an insufficiency in humans for which political institutions are a prosthetic? What is legitimacy? What is authority? Is political power a force to accomplish only instrumental ends? What is the relationship between economic justice and political justice? Can we constrain violence through law? Is there a relationship between law and morality?
• Gender Justice . Sexual difference is fundamental to the human experience, but this biological difference has assumed a plethora of socio-cultural-religious-political and philosophical forms. The step from biology to cultural difference comes under the name of gender. Some of the most important philosophical developments of the last one hundred years have had to do with what determines gender, how gender shapes how we relate to each other, and how gender plays out in the social life of both men and women. Does sex/gender matter to a person’s ability to grasp certain ideas? Are ideas gendered? Is justice gendered? Is epistemology gendered? How can we develop notions of political equality that both overcome and remedy gender inequality?
• Metaphysics . What is real? What is reality? What does it mean to be? We aim to train students to recognize that every scientific picture of the world presupposes “ontological” and “metaphysical” claims that may or may not be warranted and or sustainable.
• Epistemology .What can we know? Can we know anything for sure? Are there limits to our knowledge and, if so, how would we know? If we need a criterion to distinguish between what is true and false, how can we justify that criterion? Can we refute skepticism or relativism? Do we need to?
• Philosophy of Mind/Language . What is a mind? What is consciousness? Can non-human animals think? What is the relationship between the emotions and cognition? Can there be cognition without a language? What is a language? Can there be artificial intelligence? How do we recognize a mind in the absence of a common language? Do all languages have a deep grammar that would allow us to translate all languages? These questions overlap with many other disciplines. In fact, many disciplines have been spawned from the different ways in which philosophers have addressed and articulated these questions.
• Aesthetics . What is a work of art? In what way is the aesthetic a question of the senses, the sublime, feelings, texts, textualities, expression, perception, writing, discourse, figuration, perspective, or cultural understanding? Is beauty in the eye of the beholder, or is it objective? Can art be philosophical? What cultural cognitive, moral, political, and social roles does art perform? Does art embody the self-understanding of a society at a given time? What is the relationship between art and human experience. We aim to educate students to develop aesthetic maturity by recognizing a variety of works of art that correspond to different historical periods and that embody different artistic practices and the availability of material, techniques, and institutions.
• Our Pedagogical Principles
• Responsible Conduct

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Get Involved
• Reading Materials
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study

Intersections in Paradise: Economics and Sustainability in Palau, 2024

Learning objective.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What Are Americans’ Top Foreign Policy Priorities?

Protecting the u.s. from terrorism and reducing the flow of illegal drugs are top issues overall, but democrats and republicans have very different priorities, table of contents.

• Differences by partisanship
• Differences by age
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand Americans’ long-range foreign policy priorities. For this analysis, we surveyed 3,600 U.S. adults from April 1 to April 7, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

Americans have a lot on their plates in 2024, including an important election to determine who will remain or become again president. But the world does not stop for a U.S. election, and multiple conflicts around the world as well as other issues of global prominence continue to concern Americans.

When asked to prioritize the long-range foreign policy goals of the United States, the majority of Americans say preventing terrorist attacks (73%), keeping illegal drugs out of the country (64%) and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (63%) are top priorities. Over half of Americans also see maintaining the U.S. military advantage over other countries (53%) and preventing the spread of infectious diseases (52%) as primary foreign policy responsibilities.

About half of Americans say limiting the power and influence of Russia and China are top priorities. A recent annual threat assessment from the U.S. intelligence community focused heavily on those countries’ strengthening military relationship and their ability to shape the global narrative against U.S. interests.

Fewer than half of Americans say dealing with global climate change (44%) and getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order (42%) are top priorities. The partisan gaps on these two issues are quite large:

• 70% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say climate change should be a top priority, while 15% of Republicans and Republican leaners say this.
• 54% of Republicans say getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order should be a top priority, compared with 33% of Democrats.

About four-in-ten Americans see limiting the power and influence of North Korea and Iran as top priorities. (The survey was conducted before Iran’s large-scale missile attack on Israel on April 13.) And about a third say the same about the U.S. being a leader in artificial intelligence, a technology that governments around the world are increasingly concerned about .

When it comes to goals that focus on international engagement, like strengthening the United Nations and NATO or finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fewer than a third of Americans mark these as top foreign policy priorities.

Related: Fewer Americans view the United Nations favorably than in 2023

Only about a quarter of Americans prioritize promoting human rights in other countries, leading other countries in space exploration and reducing military commitments overseas. And similar shares say supporting Ukraine (23%) and Israel (22%) are top issues.

At the bottom of this list of foreign policy priorities are promoting global democracy ( a major policy push from the Biden administration ) and aiding refugees fleeing violence around the world – about two-in-ten Americans describe these as top concerns. These assessments come amid a recent global surge in asylum claims . Still, in Center surveys, democracy promotion has typically been at the bottom of Americans’ list of foreign policy priorities, even dating back to George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s administrations .

Overall, a majority of Americans say that all 22 long-range foreign policy goals we asked about should be given at least some priority. Still, about three-in-ten Americans say supporting Israel (31%), promoting democracy (28%) and supporting Ukraine (27%) should be given no priority.

The long-range foreign policy priority questions were also asked in 2018 and 2021, and since then there have been some significant shifts in responses:

• Since 2018, the public has become significantly more likely to say limiting the power and influence of China (+17 percentage points) and finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (+11) are top foreign policy priorities.
• Americans have also increased the emphasis they place on limiting the power and influence of Russia, particularly in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (+8 points since 2021).
• On the decline since 2018 are strengthening the UN and aiding refugees (-8 points each), reducing foreign military commitments (-6), and promoting and defending human rights in other countries (-5).
• Preventing the spread of infectious diseases is down 19 percentage points since 2021 – during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – and about back to where it was in 2018.

These are among the findings from a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 1-7, 2024.

The survey of 3,600 U.S. adults shows that foreign policy remains a partisan issue. Republicans prioritize the prevention of terrorism, reducing the flow of illegal drugs into the country, and maintaining a military advantage over other nations. Meanwhile, Democrats prioritize dealing with climate change and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but also preventing terrorist attacks.

There are also stark age differences on many of the policy goals mentioned, but for the most part, young adults are less likely than older Americans to say the issues we asked about are top priorities. The exceptions are dealing with climate change, reducing military commitments overseas, and promoting and defending human rights abroad – on these issues, 18- to 29-year-olds are significantly more likely than older Americans to assign top priority.

Even with these priorities, foreign policy generally takes the backset to domestic policy for most Americans: 83% say it is more important for President Joe Biden to focus on domestic policy, compared with 14% who say he should focus on foreign policy.

Americans are even less likely to prioritize international affairs than they were in 2019, when 74% wanted then-President Donald Trump to focus on domestic policy and 23% said he should focus on foreign policy.

Americans’ foreign policy priorities differ greatly by party. The largest divide, by a significant margin, is the 55 percentage point gap between Democrats and Republicans on dealing with global climate change (70% vs. 15%, respectively, see it as a top priority).

Supporting Ukraine, aiding refugees, reducing the spread of diseases, protecting human rights, and strengthening the UN are also issues on which Democrats are at least 20 points more likely than Republicans to prioritize. For example, 63% of Democrats say reducing the spread of infectious diseases is a top priority, compared with 41% of Republicans.

Republicans prioritize supporting Israel, reducing the flow of illegal drugs and maintaining a military advantage over other countries – among other security and hard power issues – significantly more than Democrats do. For example, more than half of Republicans (54%) say getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order should be a top focus in foreign policy. Only a third of Democrats say the same.

The priority assigned to several issues is divided even further by ideology within parties. Take support for Israel and Ukraine as examples. Supporting Israel is generally a higher priority for Republicans than Democrats, but within the Republican Party, 48% of conservatives say it’s a top concern, while 18% of moderates and liberals agree. Previous Center research shows that conservative Republicans are especially likely to favor military aid to Israel .

Supporting Ukraine, something Democrats emphasize more than Republicans, is a top priority particularly for liberal Democrats (47%), while about three-in-ten moderate and conservative Democrats agree (29%). Democrats have also shown more willingness than Republicans to provide aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

Generally, the partisan differences on the importance of several foreign policy issues have gotten smaller since 2021 , when most of these questions were last fielded. This is especially true for items related to the relative power of major countries, like the U.S. maintaining a military advantage and limiting the power and influence of both Russia and China.

However, finding a solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians – a priority that saw no partisan difference at all when it was last asked about in 2018 – has an emerging partisan gap today. The share of Democrats who call this a top priority has more than doubled, while the share of Republicans has changed little.

Age differences persist on foreign policy issues. Older Americans prioritize most of the issues we asked about at higher rates than those ages 18 t0 29.

On four issues, there is at least a 40 percentage point gap between Americans ages 65 and older and young adults ages 18 to 29. The oldest Americans are more likely to prioritize reducing the flow of illegal drugs, limiting the power and influence of China and Iran, and maintaining a U.S. military advantage.

Those in the oldest age group are also more concerned than their younger counterparts on an additional 11 issues, ranging from support for Israel to U.S. leadership in space exploration.

For their part, young adults are more likely to say dealing with global climate change, reducing U.S. military commitments overseas, and promoting and defending human rights in other countries should be top foreign policy priorities.

Even starker patterns appear when looking at partisanship within two age groups – adults ages 18 to 49 and those 50 and older.

Among Democrats, older adults place particularly high priority on supporting Ukraine, strengthening NATO, and limiting the power and influence of Russia amid its war with Ukraine. Older Democrats are also more likely than younger ones to prioritize preventing the development of WMDs, curbing the spread of diseases, strengthening the UN and promoting democracy around the world, among other issues.

Among Republicans, those ages 50 and older are more likely than those ages 18 to 49 to prioritize supporting Israel, limiting the power and influence of Iran and China, getting other countries to assume more foreign policy costs, reducing the amount of illegal drugs entering the U.S., preventing terrorism, and maintaining a military advantage.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Environment & Climate
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• International Affairs
• United Nations
• War & International Conflict

A growing share of Americans have little or no confidence in Netanyahu

Fewer americans view the united nations favorably than in 2023, rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Haptic Training Simulation: Volume III

Haptic based Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Simulation for Training with Objective Assessments Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Force is crucial for learning psychomotor skills in laparoscopic tissue manipulation. Fundamental laparoscopic surgery (FLS), on the other hand, only measures time and position accuracy. FLS is a commonly used training program for basic laparoscopic training through part tasks. The FLS is employed in most of the laparoscopic training systems, including box trainers and virtual reality (VR) simulators. However, many laparoscopic VR simulators lack force feedback and measure tissue damage solely through visual feedback based on virtual collisions. Few VR simulators that provide force feedback have subjective force metrics. To provide an objective force assessment for haptic skills training in the VR simulators, we extend the FLS part tasks to haptic-based FLS (HFLS), focusing on controlled force exertion. We interface the simulated HFLS part tasks with a customized bi-manual haptic simulator that offers five degrees of freedom (DOF) for force feedback. The proposed tasks are evaluated through face and content validity among laparoscopic surgeons of varying experience levels. The results show that trainees perform better in HFLS tasks. The average Likert score observed for face and content validity is greater than 4.6 ± 0.3 and 4 ± 0.5 for all the part tasks, which indicates the acceptance of the simulator among subjects for its appearance and functionality. Face and content validations show the need to improve haptic realism, which is also observed in existing simulators. To enhance the accuracy of force rendering, we incorporated a laparoscopic tool force model into the simulation. We study the effectiveness of the model through a psychophysical study that measures just noticeable differences (JND) for the laparoscopic gripping task. The study reveals an insignificant decrease in gripping-force JND. A simple linear model could be sufficient for gripper force feedback, and a non-linear LapTool force model does not affect the force perception for the force range of 0.5-2.5 N. Further study is required to understand the usability of the force model in laparoscopic training at a higher force range. Additionally, the construct validity of HFLS will confirm the applicability of the developed simulator to train surgeons with different levels of experience.

Keywords: Laparoscopic training simulator, FLS task, haptics, virtual reality, laparoscopic tool force model, and psychophysics

Received: 31 Dec 2023; Accepted: 30 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 P and M. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Ms. Abinaya P, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

People also looked at