The Latest Research Available - At Your Fingertips!

Designing & Teaching Learning Goals & Objectives
Robert J. Marzano

The following tips from this book are designed to assist you in applying the latest research in tangible ways in your classroom, your school or your district. Below each tip, you will find the book excerpt on which the tip is based. Click on the book title above to learn more about this resource.

To design specifying goals, use verbs such as “make and defend,” “predict,” “judge,” and “deduce.”

Specifying goals require students to make and defend predictions about what might happen or what will necessarily happen in a given situation.  Specifying goals are deductive in nature in that they require students to reason from a rule or a principle to make and defend predictions.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. (p. 47-48) Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Identifying a target goal for a unit of instruction is the first step in building a scale.

The process of creating multiple goals organized in a scale begins by identifying a target goal for a unit of instruction.  These goals must usually be gleaned from state standards documents, district standards documents, or district lists of essential learner outcomes.  This represents the target for all students in the class.  The next step is to determine the level of complexity of the target learning goal using the New Taxonomy Framework. The teacher would next construct a goal at a lower level, and then at a higher level, which can then be organized into a scale.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. (p. 63-66) Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Effective learning goals provide both student and teacher with a clear understanding of the target knowledge.

Target knowledge can be defined as the information and/or skill, strategy, or process that demonstrates attainment of the learning goal.  To translate general statements like those often found in state and district documents and essential learner outcomes, a teacher must articulate the more specific declarative or procedural knowledge implied in the general statement.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. (p. 17) Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Non-cognitive goals can be a viable instructional focus.

Durlak and Weissberg’s study is noteworthy because it demonstrates that non-cognitive goals can be a viable instructional focus. It is also noteworthy because it supports the linkage between non-cognitive goals and achievement outcomes. Their meta-analysis found that effective after-school programs produced a positive impact on participating students’ academic achievement with an effect size of .31, which translates to a 12 percentile point gain.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. (p. 8) Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Specific goals provide a clear direction for behavior and a clear indication of desired performance, and as such they serve as motivators.

In their 1990 meta-analysis of organizational studies, Locke and Latham found effect sizes that ranged from .42–.80 for specific instead of general goals (translating to a 16–29 percentile point gain). They argued that specific goals provide more concrete guidance for achievement that more general goals lack. A lack of concrete guidance creates ambiguity that students in school and laborers in the workforce simply have trouble translating into specific expected behaviors. Specific goals provide a clear direction for behavior and a clear indication of desired performance, and as such they serve as motivators.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. (p. 6)Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Two important characteristics of learning goals are goal specificity and goal difficulty.

Table 1.1 Research Results for Goal Setting

From the research reported in table 1.1, one can conclude that two important characteristics of learning goals are goal specificity and goal difficulty. Goal specificity refers to the degree to which goals are defined in terms of clear and distinct outcomes. Goal difficulty refers to the degree to which goals provide a challenge to students.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. (p. 4) Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Analysis goals require students to go beyond what was actually taught in class and make inferences that create new awareness.

Analysis goals require students to go beyond what was actually taught in class and make inferences that create new awareness. There are five types of analysis goals a teacher might design: matching goals, classifying goals, analyzing errors goals, generalizing goals, and specifying goals.
Marzano, R. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p.39). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory

There is a great deal of misunderstanding regarding executing goals, particularly as they relate to complex mental and psychomotor procedures.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding regarding executing goals, particularly as they relate to complex mental and psychomotor procedures. Although it is true that executing is at the lowest level of the New Taxonomy (because it is a form of retrieval), it can be the highest level of expectation for students when a complex mental or psychomotor procedure is involved.
Marzano, R. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p.33). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory

The process of retrieval can vary somewhat depending on the type of knowledge involved and the degree of processing required.

The process of retrieval can vary somewhat depending on the type of knowledge involved and the degree of processing required. To understand these differences, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between declarative knowledge (information) and procedural knowledge (skills, strategies, and processes).
Marzano, R. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p.28 ). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory

Generalizing goals require students to infer new generalizations and principles from information that is known or stated.

Generalizing goals require students to infer new generalizations and principles from information that is known or stated. Generalizing goals involve inductive thinking on the part of students in that they must create general statements based on specific pieces of information.
Verbs that teachers frequently use when designing generalizing goals and tasks include the following:

  • Generalize
  • What conclusions can be drawn
  • What inferences can be made
  • Create a generalization
  • Create a principle
  • Create a rule
  • Trace the development of
  • Form conclusions
Assessment items and tasks for generalizing goals commonly employ short constructed-response formats.

Marzano, R. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (pp.45-47 ). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory

Knowledge utilization goals require students to apply or use knowledge in specific situations.

Knowledge utilization goals require students to apply or use knowledge in specific situations. There are four types of knowledge utilization goals: decision-making goals, problem-solving goals, experimenting goals, and investigating goals. Decision-making goals require students to select among alternatives that initially appear equal. Problem-solving goals require students to accomplish a goal for which obstacles or limiting conditions exist. Experimenting goals require students to generate and test hypotheses about a specific physical or psychological phenomenon. Investigating goals require students to examine a past, present, or future situation.

Marzano, R. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (pp.49-53 ). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory

Investigating goals require students to examine a past, present, or future situation.

Investigating goals require students to examine a past, present, or future situation. Investigating goals are similar to experimenting goals in that they involve the gathering and testing of data. However, the data used in investigating goals are not gathered by direct observation on the part of the student as they are in experimenting goals. Instead, the data used in investigating goals are assertions and opinions that have been made by others. Investigating may be likened more to investigative reporting, whereas experimenting may be likened more to pure scientific inquiry.

Marzano, R. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p.55 ). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory

The distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge is important and should be kept in mind when designing learning goals.

The distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge is important and should be kept in mind when designing learning goals. Sometimes it is fairly easy to discern declarative versus procedural knowledge. For example, consider a goal that involves computing the area of a triangle. This is basically a procedure in that it involves a set of steps that students must execute: they must multiply the length of the base by the height and then take one-half of that product.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 15). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Analysis goals are sometimes referred to as "higher order" because they require students to make inferences that go beyond what was taught.

Analysis goals involve reasoned extensions of knowledge. They are sometimes referred to as “higher order” because they require students to make inferences that go beyond what was directly taught. The level 3 goal requires students to identify similarities and differences between two related planets. This information would not be obvious when studying planets in isolation; students would more likely have to infer similarities and differences between planets.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 27). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

A classroom organized around learning goals is also beneficial for students who do not demonstrate score 3.0 or 4.0 competence within the time allocated for a unit of instruction.

A classroom organized around learning goals is also beneficial for students who do not demonstrate score 3.0 or 4.0 competence within the time allocated for a unit of instruction. For example, assume that after the first unit of instruction that addresses two learning goals, a particular student has demonstrated score 1.0 and 2.0 competence on the two goals, respectively. While every effort would be made to ensure that all students reach at least score 3.0 competence before the beginning of the next unit, it is probably inevitable that some students will simply not be ready by the time the unit ends.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 90). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Another nontraditional aspect of a classroom organized around learning goals is that students can design their own ways to demonstrate progress on learning goals.

Another nontraditional aspect of a classroom organized around learning goals is that students can design their own ways to demonstrate progress on learning goals. It makes sense that at the beginning of the year, the teacher will be the one to design assessment tasks that illustrate progress in a specific learning goal. That is, at the beginning of the year, the teacher will present students with assessment 3.0, and tasks that demonstrate a competence level of score 4.0.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 84). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Learning goals and scales for noncognitive goals can be written just as they can be written for cognitive goals.

The learning goals traditionally defined by teachers and administrators in K–12 education are cognitive in nature in that they focus on academic content. However, as indicated in the research and theory chapter, there is growing interest in supplementing these learning goals with goals that are noncognitive in nature. Noncognitive goals often refer to behaviors and/or attitudes that are not explicitly tied to content. … Learning goals and scales for noncognitive goals can be written just as they can be written for cognitive goals.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (pp. 70–71). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Back to top

Generally speaking, a two-week unit of instruction can address somewhere between two and three goals without taxing the resources of individual teachers and the capacities of students.

The curriculum over the course of a year is composed of individual units of instruction. Within a
single unit of instruction a teacher typically addresses a few academic learning goals and even fewer noncognitive goals. Exactly how many goals should be identified is indeterminate. That noted, it makes some intuitive sense that a two-week unit of instruction can address somewhere between two and three goals without taxing the resources of individual teachers and the capacities of students. Thus, on average, a unit of instruction could handle 2.5 learning goals. If one extends this thinking, the entire year can address some 45 learning goals because the school year is typically thirty-six weeks long.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 79). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

 

A classroom organized around learning goals allows students to show progress in their competence for each learning goal throughout the year.

One defining characteristic of a classroom organized around learning goals is that students progress in their competence throughout a unit of instruction and throughout the year for each learning goal. This is possible because the teacher has provided a scale for each learning goal that lends itself to tracking knowledge development.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 83). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

 

Students can move at their own pace in a classroom organized around learning goals.

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of a classroom organized around learning goals is that students can move at their own pace. As described previously, after students have demonstrated score 3.0 or score 4.0 competence for the learning goals in a particular unit, they can volunteer to act as peer tutors for students who are having difficulty reaching that level within the time constraints of the unit. It is very important that peer tutoring be a volunteer activity.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 89). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Back to top

To write goals at different levels of complexity using the New Taxonomy, teachers should understand the mental process associated with each level of the New Taxonomy.

Each of the four levels of the New Taxonomy involves specific mental processes. This is depicted in table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Mental Processes Associated With Each Level of the New Taxonomy Level of Difficulty Mental Processes

Level 4: Knowledge Utilization Decision Making
Problem Solving
Experimenting
Investigating
Level 3: Analysis Matching
Classifying
Analyzing Errors
Generalizing
Specifying
Level 2: Comprehension Integrating
Symbolizing
Level 1: Retrieval Recognizing
Recalling
Executing

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 27). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Teachers can differentiate levels of complexity for executing complex procedures.

Executing involves actually carrying out a mental or psychomotor procedure as opposed to simply recognizing or recalling information about procedures…. One way to differentiate levels of complexity for complex procedures is to break them into smaller component parts. For some students, a teacher might focus on one or two elements only for a complex procedure. For example, for students less skilled at writing persuasive essays, the emphasis might be on stating a clear claim with some sentences supporting the claim. With this more narrow focus for less skilled students, goals for more skilled students would incorporate more components of the overall complex procedure.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 33). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Symbolizing goals and tasks are usually designed using certain phrases.

Symbolizing goals require students to translate their understanding into some pictorial, graphic, or pictographic representation. Another way of saying this is that symbolizing goals require students to translate what they have produced from an integrating goal into some nonlinguistic form. Consequently, symbolizing goals can be and are frequently used in tandem with integrating goals. Sample symbolizing goals and tasks are presented in table 3.8 (page 38).

 

Verbs that teachers frequently use when constructing symbolizing goals and tasks include the following:
• Symbolize
• Depict
• Represent
• Illustrate
• Draw
• Show
• Use models
• Diagram
• Chart
 

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (pp. 36–38). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Back to top

Goals designed for the mental processes of classifying and matching (both in the analysis level) should be constructed differently.

The mental process of classifying goes beyond organizing items into groups or categories. As described previously, such activity is better thought of as matching. Instead, classifying involves identifying the superordinate category in which knowledge belongs as well as the subordinate categories (if any) for knowledge. To illustrate, a goal that requires students to organize the fifty states into three categories based on voting tendencies in presidential elections (Democratic, Republican, or Independent) would be considered a classifying task because it requires students to identify superordinate categories to which each state belongs.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 42). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Creating specific goals requires making the right distinctions among learning goals, activities, and assignments.

Goal specificity begins with making a distinction between learning goals and the classroom activities and assignments that will support those goals… As the names imply, activities and assignments are things students will be asked to do. They are a critical part of effective teaching, but they are not ends in themselves. They constitute the means by which the ends, or learning goals, are to be accomplished.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 13). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

To translate general statements into specific learning goals, a teacher must rely on his or her knowledge of the expectations for students at specific grade levels and in specific content areas.

As the social studies and language arts examples illustrate, constructing learning goals from general statements involves knowing or inferring the intent of the authors of the general statement. Stated differently, a teacher must rely on his or her knowledge of the expectations for students at specific grade levels and in specific content areas to translate general statements into specific learning goals. This is sometimes as much art as it is science.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 18). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Back to top

For a given topic in a unit of instruction, construct goals at multiple levels of difficulty.

In a classroom with twenty-five or more students, developing learning goals at the right level of difficulty can pose significant obstacles for teachers. Given that students will be at different levels of understanding or skill in terms of the content being studied, how can a teacher write a goal for all students that satisfies the criterion “challenging but attainable”? The answer is fairly straightforward. For a given topic in a unit of instruction, construct goals at multiple levels of difficulty.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 25). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

To effectively use a scale involving learning goals, it is necessary to write goals at different levels of complexity.

Table 3.2 Abbreviated Scale Involving Learning Goals at Different Levels of Difficulty
 

Score 4.0 More complex learning goal
Score 3.0 Target learning goal
Score 2.0 Simpler learning goal
Score 1.0 With help, partial success at score 2.0 content and score 3.0 content
Score 0.0 Even with help, no success

 

We consider a more detailed form of this scale in chapter 4 (table 4.2, page 67). Briefly though, the scale depicted in table 3.2 requires three learning goals. The target learning goal is the goal initially designed by the teacher for the whole class. It is placed in score 3.0 position on the scale. A more complex goal is placed in the score 4.0 position, and a simpler goal is placed in the score 2.0 position. Score 1.0 and score 0.0 don’t require new goals; they involve students’ successful performance (or lack of performance) with help. To effectively use the scale, it is necessary to write goals at different levels of complexity. This is where the New Taxonomy can be of value.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 27). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Research shows that good teaching begins with clear learning goals.

Goals are the reason classroom activities are designed. Without clear goals, classroom activities are without direction. Researchers Joseph Krajcik, Katherine McNeill, and Brian Reiser (2007) explain that good teaching begins with clear learning goals from which teachers select appropriate instructional activities and assessments that help determine students’ progress on the learning goals.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 4). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Back to top

Studies show that students are most motivated by goals that are challenging, but not too difficult.

Students will perceive learning goals as more or less difficult depending on their current state of knowledge, their beliefs about what causes achievement, and their perceptions of their own abilities. Studies indicate that students are most motivated by goals they perceive as difficult but not too difficult.... Goal difficulty may also moderate or change the effect of feedback on student achievement. For example, Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi (1996) found that feedback as an instructional strategy is more effective when learning goals are at the right level of difficulty—challenging, but not too difficult.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 6). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
 

Cooperative goal structures can help students accomplish individual academic goals and noncognitive goals.

Cooperative goals are not established in lieu of individual goals. Instead, cooperative goal structures are established to help students accomplish academic goals. Individual students are still held accountable for accomplishing academic goals, but those individual students do not have to work in isolation or in competition to accomplish those goals. Additionally, cooperative structures are particularly useful when focusing on noncognitive goals because cooperative learning skills are commonly the very targets of many noncognitive goals.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 9). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
 

Specific learning goals should be stated in one of two formats to represent declarative knowledge or procedural knowledge.

When first learning how to set specific goals, we recommend that you state them in one of the following two formats:

  • Students will be able to ____________________.
  • Students will understand ____________________.

The reason for the two formats is that content knowledge can be organized into two broad categories: declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge (Anderson, et al., 2001; Marzano & Kendall, 2007). Chapter 3 addresses these two types of knowledge in some depth. Briefly, declarative knowledge is informational. Procedural knowledge involves skills, strategies, and processes.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 15). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Back to top

Well-structured learning goals make assessment tasks easier to construct.

As we shall see in subsequent chapters, a system of well-constructed tasks to accompany learning goals provides a powerful framework for curriculum and assessment. Well-structured learning goals make assessment tasks easier to construct, and well-constructed assessment tasks help operationalize learning goals.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives (p. 19). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.