In 2010, when I first stepped into the classroom, the concept of posting Learning Targets was incredibly popular. As a new teacher eager to please and follow best practices, I fully embraced this trend, perhaps even going overboard.
In my fourth-grade classroom, I diligently displayed learning targets for every single lesson. Beside these targets, I had a large, laminated construction paper target, resembling a dartboard. To add an element of fun, I even bought a toy bow and arrow with suction cups. After each lesson, students would take turns aiming the arrow at the target, symbolically “hitting” our learning goals.
While this approach was undoubtedly gimmicky and initially engaging, its novelty soon wore off. It became time-consuming, lost its appeal, and, most importantly, it wasn’t genuinely improving student learning.
Fast forward almost 15 years, and the practice of posting learning targets remains a common expectation in many schools. Teachers are still frequently asked to display learning targets and clarify them at the beginning of each lesson. However, this practice is not without its critics. Many educators express skepticism, with some stating they “don’t believe in learning targets” and others viewing it as a mere “compliance exercise.” Some even argue that pre-determined learning targets contradict constructivist teaching methods, suggesting that providing targets upfront hinders students’ opportunity to construct knowledge independently.
While these arguments against learning targets contain elements of truth, especially concerning the potential for compliance-driven implementation, they often miss the fundamental value of well-utilized learning targets. In my experience, resistance to learning targets often stems from two primary issues: (1) school leaders may focus on the act of posting learning targets for compliance, rather than promoting their integration for enhanced lesson clarity and sustainable teaching practices; and (2) many teachers lack a comprehensive understanding, both practically and theoretically, of how effectively learning targets can boost student understanding, facilitate personalized learning, and contribute to sustainable educational environments.
The critical question we should be asking isn’t simply “Why are we still posting learning targets?” but rather, “Why are we still posting learning targets if we aren’t equipping teachers to leverage them for maximum educational benefit?”
Enhancing Student Understanding with Clear Learning Targets
When learning targets are implemented merely for the sake of adherence to policy, they often fail to meaningfully contribute to student understanding. Furthermore, some educators mistakenly post broad learning goals instead of breaking them down into specific, manageable learning objectives that students can grasp and reflect upon at the end of a lesson.
Consider the difference between these two examples. A broad goal like, “Students will write an informational piece, incorporating their research on frogs,” is significantly different from a specific learning target such as, “Students will combine drafts of informational paragraphs into a final draft of an informational piece.” The former describes a general performance task, while the latter hones in on a specific step within the writing process, clearly defining the skill students are expected to demonstrate.
Crafting learning targets with precision and clarity brings the action verb into sharp focus. The verb “write” is broad and can manifest in numerous ways. In contrast, “combine,” while still somewhat subjective, provides a clearer picture of the task at hand. It signals that the lesson’s primary focus is on synthesizing existing work rather than initial drafting or general writing. For even greater clarity, we could refine the learning target further to: “Students will synthesize drafts of informational paragraphs to produce a cohesive final draft of an informational piece.“
This enhanced clarity in the learning target benefits both teachers and students. For teachers, it sharpens the lesson’s focus, guiding instructional decisions. For students, it establishes clear boundaries and expectations. In the context of writing, for example, it’s easy to get sidetracked by addressing grammar, spelling, or punctuation prematurely. However, when the learning target explicitly centers on synthesizing drafts, both teachers and students can prioritize this skill and postpone editing for mechanics until a lesson specifically dedicated to editing skills. This targeted approach ensures that learning is focused and effective.
Personalizing Learning Through Universal Learning Targets
Initially, it might seem counterintuitive that a universal learning target could support personalized learning. When teachers argue that learning targets clash with personalized learning approaches, it often reveals a misunderstanding of personalized learning itself. These misconceptions typically fall into two categories: (1) equating personalized learning with individualized learning; or (2) focusing too narrowly on one aspect of personalization without recognizing its broader, more nuanced nature. There are numerous sustainable methods to personalize learning in partnership with students, and these methods do not necessitate creating unique learning targets for each individual.
If personalized learning and individualized learning were synonymous, we wouldn’t have distinct terms for them. Sustainable personalized learning thrives within universally designed learning environments where students are empowered to make meaningful choices. It’s not solely about individualized curricula or adaptive technologies that deliver content through personalized videos and multiple-choice questions.
The key question then becomes: How can learning be personalized if all students are working towards the same learning target? Carol Ann Tomlinson, renowned expert in differentiated instruction and author of So Each May Soar, reminds us that differentiation can be effectively implemented through four key avenues: content, process, product, and the learning environment. Therefore, even when students share a common learning target, learning can be deeply personalized through these diverse approaches.
While all students might be working on the same informational writing learning target, they can personalize their learning by choosing to write about different topics that genuinely interest them. When teaching elementary grades, my learning targets often concentrated on transferable writing skills, such as “I can identify a text structure for my informational piece that aligns with my topic.” This learning target was universal, yet it allowed students to apply various text structures to their chosen topics. This approach increased their cognitive engagement, fostered agency and independence, while allowing them to explore subjects they were passionate about.
In a math classroom, a teacher might set a learning target focused on understanding the relationship between area and perimeter for all students. However, the processes students use to reach this understanding can be highly personalized. Some students might benefit from using square tiles to physically calculate; others might prefer drawing models and employing counting or skip-counting patterns; while some advanced learners might be ready to apply standard algorithms and even explore patterns between areas and perimeters of different shapes.
Similarly, in reading, students can demonstrate their comprehension of a text’s central theme in diverse ways. Teachers can offer a menu of options for students to showcase their understanding. Some might choose to identify a symbol or image that represents the central theme and justify their choice with a brief written paragraph. Others might opt to write a literary essay incorporating textual evidence. Some might even create an alternative ending to the story, illustrating how the central theme could evolve with different plot events. While these varied approaches utilize different mediums and reflect varying levels of complexity, they all provide valuable evidence of student progress toward the shared learning target, while offering meaningful choice and personalization within structured boundaries.
Fostering Sustainable Teaching Practices
Sustainable teaching benefits both students and teachers – a crucial point to emphasize. Sustainability in education should make teachers’ work more efficient and manageable without compromising instructional quality. Posting and effectively using learning targets aligns perfectly with these criteria, contributing significantly to #SustainableTeaching.
While the sustainability benefits are inherent in enhancing student understanding and personalized learning, it’s worth reiterating that achieving sustainable teaching, as explored in Make Teaching Sustainable: Six Shifts Teachers Want and Students Need, requires embracing learner empowerment, streamlining planning and preparation, and fostering instructional flexibility. These are three of the six key mindset shifts outlined in the book.
Student voice and choice are central to learner empowerment. However, voice, choice, and empowerment shouldn’t imply limitless, unstructured decision-making. Learning targets provide necessary boundaries around the learning objectives, but they don’t dictate the content, process, or product of learning, as illustrated in the personalized learning examples. The structure provided by learning targets promotes sustainability and clarity, while simultaneously granting students developmentally appropriate agency and autonomy in how they engage with the learning target. Just as students can explore the relationship between area and perimeter using various tools, learning targets allow for sustainable personalization through student agency. These diverse tools and approaches ensure accessibility for all learners, from concrete to representational to abstract learning styles.
Moving Beyond Compliance to Meaningful Implementation
Unfortunately, in some educational settings, learning targets are still implemented primarily for compliance. This context understandably leads to resentment and frustration among teachers when administrators focus solely on whether learning targets are displayed, rather than on their effective use.
If administrators observe a decline in teachers posting learning targets, this should be viewed as valuable formative data for professional development. The critical questions for school leaders then become: What adjustments do we need to make in our professional learning initiatives to help teachers truly understand the value of learning targets? How can we demonstrate how learning targets can simplify teachers’ workloads and contribute to more sustainable teaching practices?
Shifting the focus from compliance and control to these insightful questions will significantly increase the likelihood that learning targets become an integral component of a sustainable and effective instructional framework. This shift creates a mutually beneficial scenario: teachers gain structure that minimizes complexity, administrators and coaches gain clearer insights into classroom learning during visits, and, most importantly, learners gain the clarity needed to make productive choices, becoming active partners in personalizing their learning journey by developing their agency.
