According to HealthDay News (April 2006, p. 1), an online medical advisorynewsletter, “an Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is characterized by anunusually high level of concern or anxiety about a particular subject. It’sbelieved to be caused by a brain abnormality that affects the way informa-

tion is processed. According to the Obsessive-Compulsive Foundation, anantidepressant is typically used to treat OCD. Your doctor may also recommend behav-ioral therapy or counseling to help treat the disorder and minimize symptoms.”

Although I would never trivialize the devastation to the lives of those who have thisdisorder, I use this disorder as an analogy because I believe that we in the field of train-ing and performance improvement are still writing objectives poorly because we havedeveloped an Objectives-Compulsive Disorder about the precision with which theymust be written. We agonize over, debate, and discuss the wording of each objective tothe nth degree and forget about the purpose of an objective, which is to clearly statewhat learners are to know, what they are to do, and how they are to react after an inter-vention. But there is a prescription for the Objectives-Compulsive Disorder that iffollowed can lead to a cure.

It is probably important at this point to define the term intervention as it is used through-out this article. I use this term to describe any type of solution that enhances learning orperformance: for example, a training program, a performance enhancement system, ahelp system, an organizational change effort, or a data management solution. I use theterm prescription to refer to the antidote for the Objectives-Compulsive Disorder.

Yet the Compulsion Remains

The scene was set for the role of objectives in traditional instructional design byMager’s 1962 book, Preparing Instructional Objectives, in which Mager advocatedusing objectives to put the focus back on the learner and the desired outcomes of train-ing. Shortly thereafter Gagne’s 1965 book, The Conditions of Learning and Theory ofInstruction, established learned capabilities as the basis of the five-part objective.Literally hundreds of thousands of words have been written since then about objec-tives. Thousands of workshops have been conducted on how to write objectives andprobably billions of objectives have been written.

THE CURE FOR THE OCD(OBJECTIVES-COMPULSIVE DISORDER)

by William W. Lee

14Performance Improvement, vol. 45, no. 8, September 2006© 2006 International Society for Performance ImprovementPublished online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI:10.1002/pfi.004

Lately, there have been many attempts to alleviate ourobsession with this traditional instructional design pro-cess. For example, Sharon Gander’s article in PerformanceImprovement (2006) almost convinced me of the value ofher proposal to eliminate part of the instructional designprocess—objectives. Gordon and Zemke (2000) believethat the traditional process is obsolete. They charge thatthe instructional design process (1) is slow and clumsy,(2) attempts to turn the art of training into a science, (3)produces bad solutions, and (4) clings to a wrong world-view that learners are stupid and cannot figure things outfor themselves.

And yet the instructional design process survives, appar-ently healthy and strong, along with the step in the processthat states write objectives. There is a way to stay within thestructure of the instructional design process rather than takeGander’s or Gordon and Zemke’s suggestions to just throwaway the entire process or eliminate a step. Objectives dohave a purpose. Let’s remember what that purpose is.Starting over risks our spending the next 44 years work-ing our way back to where we are today.

The Cure for the Objectives-CompulsiveDisorder

This author has been an educator and consultant with orga-nizations for 40 years and still finds objectives that no onecould measure (except with a ruler, because they are solengthy and convoluted), hundreds of objectives for a one-day course that could not possibly be covered, andstatements that delve so deeply into every element of anintervention it would be impossible to measure them. If youare spending project time writing copious and detailedobjectives just because it’s a step in the instructional designprocess, then stop! You are affected by the OCD! The cure issimple once you accept the following five prescriptions.However, if you begin to obsess on any one of the five andcannot move on, you will not be cured.

Prescription 1: Substitute Common Terms for Technical Terms

The first prescription is to remove the terms cognitive, psy-chomotor, and affective from our customer vocabulary andreplace them with terms anyone can understand. Thesewords are the language of the instructional design professionand are not in the daily lexicon of those outside the profes-sion. If our purpose is to obtain information from subjectmatter experts who do not understand our secret language,then it makes sense to use terms such as know, do, and impor-tant. Cognitive now becomes know, psychomotor becomesdo, and affective becomes important.

Remember, instructional designers need to collect informa-tion from subject matter experts so they can arrange theintervention content in a logical flow. The best way to col-

lect this information is for those who possess the knowledgeand those who need to collect it to use a common language.Developing a common language of work has been advocatedby Langdon (1996) for all areas of endeavor and thisapproach seems particularly poignant for the training industrythat is attempting to integrate more closely with its customers.

I think the best argument for simplifying terminology is thefact that even instructional design professionals have notbeen able to develop common terminology and standardiza-tion of objectives. There are behavioral objectives, terminalobjectives, learning objectives, and performance objectivesamong the various nomenclatures. There are four-partobjectives and five-part objectives. The confusion goes onand on. Select a random sample of 100 instructional design-ers, ask them to write an objective about a learning activity,and you will probably get 100 different objectives.

With so much variability in thinking about the who, what,when, and to what extent of objectives within the profes-sion, it is unfair to ask those outside the profession to beable to understand them and help us write them.

Prescription 2: Limit the Number of Objectives

The second prescription is to stand up and loudly declare,“There is no intervention that needs more than three objec-tives: one cognitive, one psychomotor, and one affective!”(Now that was therapeutic, wasn’t it?) One objective foreach of these three domains would constitute the desiredterminal outcomes of an intervention. Designers needanswer only the following three questions to determinethese three objectives:1. Summarized in one sentence, what does someone really

need to know about [whatever the intervention is]?”(Cognitive)

2. “Summarized in one sentence, what does someone reallyneed to be able to do after [whatever the interventionis]?” (Psychomotor)

3. “Summarized in one sentence, why is knowing anddoing [whatever the intervention is] important?”(Affective)

Designers can craft the terminal outcomes from the answersto these initial questions.

Prescription 3: Eliminate Lesson or Learning Objectives

The third prescription is to eliminate lesson or learningobjectives. First, list the content topics for the intervention,without consideration of sequence or order at this point.Table 1 provides a model for this activity.

Second, ask the subject matter experts to list the components ofeach topic. Third, ask the questions listed under the correspond-ing terminal objective in Table 1. If this activity resembles

15Performance Improvement • Volume 45 • Number 8 • DOI:10.1002/pfi

content or task analysis, it is, butinstructional design terminology hasnot been used.

Prescription 4: Integrate Objectivesinto the Intervention

The design phase of the interventioncan begin once the content outline iscompleted. The topics and contentcan now be sequenced into an instruc-tional flow that results in a fullydeveloped design for the intervention.

But maybe you are still trying toswallow the medication from prescrip-tion three? No learning objectives!There are learning objectives, but thetime spent crafting them into a four-or five-part format has been elimi-nated. The topics are now yourlearning objectives. Just list them in

the introduction to each section of theintervention where they will be covered.List the terminal objectives in the intro-duction to the overall intervention. Yourusers need to see them only once. Users donot have to be reminded of them at thebeginning of every section.

Prescription 5: Create an Evaluation Plan

Do you find yourself thinking, “But objec-tives must be measurable! You have to beable to determine if the terminal outcomeshave been achieved!” The therapy offeredby this prescription is to integrate objec-tive planning and measurement into anoverall evaluation plan. An evaluationplan (Lee & Owens, 2004) can be used tooutline how objectives of the interventionwill be assessed and measured at each ofKirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s (2005) fourlevels. Table 2 provides a sample templatefor an evaluation plan, including recom-mended questions to be asked at each level.

Now the intervention can be measured todetermine if it ultimately meets the threeterminal objectives.

Implications for Better ObjectiveHealth

In summary, this article has identifiedfive proposed prescriptions for the cure of

16 www.ispi.org • DOI:10.1002/pfi • SEPTEMBER 2006

Table 1. Content Outline.

Table 2. Evaluation Plan.

Cognitive Terminal Objective

PsychomotorTerminal Objective

Affective Terminal Objective

What does the targetaudience need to knowabout this component?

What does the target audience need to do?

Why is what the target audience knowsor does important?

Topics Components

Topic 1

Topic 2

Topic 3

(Add rows and columns as needed)

Project Name

Section or Level Recommended Questions

Executive summary The problem/the solution

Problem statement The rationale for addressing this issueGap between present state and desired state

Solution Results of analysis for bridging the gap

Objectives Measurable terminal objectives from the content outline

Evaluation Plan

Level 1 (Reaction)

Is there a need to collect reaction data?Survey constructionData collectionData analysisExpected resultsReporting results

Level 2 (Learning)

Is there a need to measure cognitive gains?Test constructionData collectionData analysisExpected resultsReporting results

Level 3 (Behavior)

Is there a need to assess how learned skills are used on the job?Observation study constructionData collectionData analysisExpected resultsReporting results

Level 4 (Results)

Is there a need to measure how applied skills have influenced business measures?Study constructionData collectionData analysisExpected resultsReporting results

the Objectives-Compulsive Disorder. Are you cured? Thereare four important results of using this cure.

First, Gander is correct in finding that instructional design-ers and human performance technologists spend a lot oftime agonizing over objectives that do not seem to measureimportant outcomes. The cure proposed by this article mea-sures the entire intervention accurately.

Second, this cure is completed during the analysis phase ofa project. You are completing the task analysis, instructionalanalysis, and performance analysis simultaneously and areready to begin design. And the effort is completed with sig-nificant time savings, not only during analysis butultimately during the design phase as well.

Third, this method uses language that those who need to beinvolved in the analysis can understand. A subject matterexpert can answer the questions posed by this cure.

Fourth, locking down the content by using the content out-line and evaluation plan will reduce the amount of scopecreep that occurs in a project. Topics later suggested oradded must match the terminal objectives or they are notincluded.

Conclusion

So, yes, let us eliminate meaningless objectives, but let usalso avoid moving to another taxonomy that establishes yetanother language with terminology that the profession willhave to yet again debate. Let us keep the focus on the learnerbut use terms commonly found in others’ lexicon to deter-mine what it is we want to impart to learners, and focus ourmeasurement efforts to determine the effectiveness of thefinal outcome.

References

Gagne, R.M. (1965). The conditions of learning and theoryof instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Gander, S. (2006). Throw out learning objectives! In supportof a new taxonomy. Performance Improvement, 45(3), 9-15.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD.Training, 27(4), 42-53.

HealthDay News. (2006). Understanding the obsessive-compulsive disorder. HealthDay, April.Retrieved May 2, 2006, from www.healthday.com.

Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2005). Evaluating trainingprograms: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Langdon, D. (1996). A new language of work. Amherst,MA: Human Resources Development Press.

Lee, W., & Owens, D. (2004). Multimedia-based instructional design: Computer-based training, web-basedtraining, distance broadcast training, and performance-based solutions. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Mager, R. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.

William W. Lee is the Director of Educational Research and Development at The American Heart Association in Dallas, Texas. He has worked and consulted in industries such as customer service, engineering, data manage-ment, the military, higher education, and now health services. Those years ofworking with and writing objectives have resulted in his position that the pro-fession needs get back to what objectives were designed to do: focus on thelearner. He may be contacted at The American Heart Association:William.lee@heart.org.

17Performance Improvement • Volume 45 • Number 8 • DOI:10.1002/pfi