Goldilocks objectives - Not too vague, not too specific, but just right.

Discussing learning objectives/outcomes is not a "sexy" topic within education. In fact, there are very few topics I can think of that teachers would like to talk about less during professional development. Nonetheless, developing clear and measurable objectives is essential to effective teaching practices. The central question every teacher must ask themselves while designing a lesson is, "what do I want my students to know when they leave my classroom?" - THIS is the objective. While this may appear straightforward, I feel that some teachers fall into the Goldilocks trap - that is to say, their objectives are either too vague or too specific, and not "just right". 

Too vague implies the objectives cover too much material and students are not sure what to take away. For example, in psychology class, "students will be able to (SWBAT) discuss how the human brain functions." I would ask this teacher, "do you mean how the brain functions every day or during a specific task? What parts of the brain should students focus on? And how will you measure a discussion of the human brain? I think a more appropriate objective would be "SWBAT identify parts of the brain that affect learning and memory." THIS is measurable. 

Another issue is when objectives are too specific. For example, "SWBAT explain how a medium-size tumor on the left side of the brain may impact fine motor skills." When an objective is too specific, it is often difficult for students to connect what they learn in class to everyday experiences or to other subject areas. A more appropriate objective may be, "SWBAT explain how a brain injury (or brain disease) can affect movement and bodily functioning." 

As I stated previously, learning objectives are not exciting, but they are important to constructing an effective lesson. Getting the "just right" objective takes time and lot's of practice in the classroom.