Education should begin with the end in mind

In education, as in other endeavours, having a clear set of goals in mind is critical — whether for ourselves or for any programme we are involved in. It provides an important underpinning of success.

Goals help us focus on energy, drive and actions; they give us a measure to assess progress and achieve planned results.

But there is a considerable gap between familiarity with goal setting and actual mastery of the art of it — that incorporates the ability to cultivate and communicate potent goals which galvanise us.

Goals start off generally broad and focus on the large central picture. They are intended to direct thought and accomplishment.

To achieve a goal in learning, we have to build up related and specific learning objectives. These lead to specific learning outcomes, which lead to our goal. Thus, learning outcomes specify the planned end point of learning activities.

Objectives have to be specific, measurable, achievable and realistic. Assessing whether the objectives and outcomes can be achieved requires developing the right assessment tools — which include not just questions but also, depending on the level of knowledge being assessed, skills and observation under working conditions.

Individual outcomes could be knowledge, skills or behaviour. The ability to measure depends on how explicit the objectives are; for example, having a student memorise multiplication tables for numbers up to 12 is specific and measurable.

Obviously, this gets more difficult as one moves up the assessment in higher levels of learning. But the clearer and more unambiguous these objectives are, the better, as they will define what needs to be assessed and how to do it.

CAUSE OF FRUSTRATION

There are some important attributes that learning objectives should not have.

Firstly, they should not be ambiguous or too general, such as asking students how kidneys work. This could be a goal — but it is not an objective that can be measured until it is broken down into specific objectives with a clearly assessable element.

Secondly, the objectives should not be unrealistic. If the objective for a first-year medical student is set at a level that is too high — such as that he or she should know how to treat a complex kidney disease — then we will have problems.

In establishing outcomes and objectives, we should avoid ambiguity or over-complexity. If the objective is too much of a stretch and is not achievable, it can lead to frustration and disillusionment, exactly the opposite of what is desired.

The clear development of learning objectives becomes the framework for producing content. Thus, in today’s world, if the learning objectives are based on memorisation of knowledge rather than on identifying, understanding and applying concepts, then the assessment approach would be designed accordingly.

In today’s world of learning, the development of goals and assessment materials is what makes each school unique. These materials are hard to construct but, if done right, they drive the learning towards specific outcomes.

Unfortunately, much of the effort in schools today is towards content generation and delivery, with very little effort made towards either building proper specific learning objectives or formative learning assessments.

Thus, schools and teachers focus on delivering content by lectures instead of taking advantage of the many resources that are freely available a fingertip away.

But knowing where to find these resources, assessing the value and utility of these resources and connecting them to the learning objectives should be the critical part — not the generation of content.

If schools or programmes focus on what the specific objectives should be, then they can leverage the best content, often from the very best teachers, and integrate this into a learning environment with the proper assessment tools.

We just need to, first and foremost, keep the end in mind.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

K Ranga Krishnan is Dean of the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore. A clinician-scientist and psychiatrist, he chaired the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at Duke University Medical Centre from 1998 to 2009.