When I first stepped into a classroom in 2010, the concept of posting Learning Targets was highly fashionable in education. As a new teacher, eager to please and follow best practices, I enthusiastically embraced this trend, perhaps even going overboard.
In my fourth-grade classroom, I diligently displayed learning targets for every single lesson. Accompanying these targets was a large, laminated construction paper target, resembling a dartboard. To add a playful element, I even acquired a toy bow and arrow with suction cups. At the end of each lesson, students would take turns aiming the arrow at the target, symbolizing their attempt to achieve the learning goals.
While this approach was undoubtedly attention-grabbing, it proved to be unsustainable. It was time-consuming, the novelty wore off quickly, and most importantly, it didn’t genuinely enhance student learning.
Nearly fifteen years later, the practice of posting learning targets remains a common expectation in schools. Teachers are still frequently asked to display learning targets and clarify them at the beginning of each lesson. However, this practice often faces resistance. Many educators express skepticism, stating they “don’t believe in learning targets,” or view it merely as a “compliance exercise.” Some even argue that pre-determined learning targets contradict constructivist teaching principles, suggesting that providing targets upfront undermines students’ opportunity to construct knowledge independently.
There are valid points within these arguments against simply posting learning targets, except perhaps the outright dismissal of their value. In my view, these objections highlight two critical issues: (1) school leaders may be emphasizing the display of learning targets for accountability, rather than promoting their integration into lessons for enhanced clarity and long-term instructional improvement; and (2) many teachers lack a comprehensive understanding, both practically and theoretically, of how learning targets can effectively support student comprehension, personalized learning approaches, and sustainable teaching practices within schools.
The fundamental question remains relevant, yet perhaps needs reframing: Why are we still emphasizing the posting of learning targets if we are not adequately supporting teachers in leveraging them for maximum instructional impact?
Enhancing Student Understanding with Clear Learning Targets
One of the primary reasons learning targets may fall short of their potential is that they are often implemented merely for compliance purposes. In such cases, these targets fail to serve a meaningful role in fostering student understanding. Furthermore, some educators post broad learning goals instead of breaking them down into specific, manageable learning objectives that students can readily grasp and reflect upon at the conclusion of a lesson.
Consider the difference between a broad goal like, “Students will write an informational piece, incorporating their research on frogs,” and a more focused learning target such as, “Students will combine drafts of informational paragraphs into a final draft of an informational piece.” The former describes a complete performance task, while the latter pinpoints a specific step in the writing process and clearly articulates the skill students are expected to demonstrate.
Crafting learning targets with greater precision and clarity brings the action verb into sharper focus. “Write” is a general verb that can manifest in numerous ways. “Combine,” while still somewhat open to interpretation, provides a clearer picture of the task at hand. It signals that the lesson is less about initial drafting or general writing, and more about synthesizing existing work into a unified piece. For even greater clarity, one might refine the learning target to: “Students will synthesize drafts of informational paragraphs into a final draft of an informational piece.“
This enhanced clarity in the learning target benefits both teachers and students. It helps teachers concentrate their instruction on the specific skill being taught. It also sets clear boundaries for students. In subjects like writing, it’s easy to get sidetracked by addressing grammar, spelling, or punctuation prematurely. However, when the learning target is centered on synthesizing drafts, both teachers and students can postpone focusing on mechanics until a lesson specifically dedicated to editing.
Clear learning targets displayed in the classroom help students understand lesson objectives.
Personalizing Learning Through Universal Learning Targets
It may not be immediately obvious, but utilizing learning targets can actually be a powerful tool for supporting personalized learning. The argument that learning targets contradict personalized learning often stems from a misunderstanding of personalized learning itself. Often, teachers either: (1) misunderstand personalization, confusing individualized learning with personalized learning; or (2) focus too narrowly on one aspect of personalized learning, overlooking its broader, more nuanced nature. There are numerous sustainable methods to personalize learning in partnership with students, and it certainly doesn’t necessitate creating a unique learning target for each individual student.
If personalized learning and individualized learning were truly 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 videos and multiple-choice questions tailored to each student.
The 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 implemented across four key dimensions: content, process, product, and learning environment. Therefore, even when students share a common learning target, personalization can still be achieved through these diverse avenues.
For instance, while all students might be working on the same informational writing learning target, they can personalize their learning by choosing to write about different informational topics that genuinely interest them. When teaching elementary grades, my learning targets often focused on transferable writing skills, such as “I can identify a text structure for my informational piece that matches my topic.” This learning target was universal, yet students could apply various text structures to topics of their own choosing. This approach shifted the cognitive load to students, fostering agency and independence, while allowing them to explore topics that resonated with their individual interests.
In mathematics, a teacher might aim for all students to understand the relationship between area and perimeter. However, students’ processes to achieve this understanding will naturally vary. Some might need to use physical square tiles for hands-on calculation. Others may prefer drawing models and employing counting or skip-counting patterns to determine the number of squares within a rectilinear figure. Still others might be ready to apply standard algorithms for calculating area and perimeter, perhaps even exploring patterns between different area sizes and their corresponding perimeters.
Similarly, in reading, students can demonstrate their comprehension of a text’s central theme in diverse ways. Teachers can offer a range of options for showcasing this understanding. Some students might choose to identify a symbol or image representing the theme, supported by a brief written explanation. Others might opt for a literary essay incorporating textual evidence. Some could even write an alternative ending to the story, illustrating how the central theme might evolve with different plot events. While these options represent different mediums and varying levels of complexity, they all provide teachers with evidence of student progress towards the same learning target, while simultaneously offering students choices within a structured framework.
Personalized learning can be effectively supported even with common learning targets through varied approaches and student choice.
Fostering Sustainable Teaching Practices
Sustainable teaching benefits both students and teachers – a crucial point to emphasize. Sustainability in education should aim to make teachers’ work more manageable and efficient, without compromising the quality of instruction. Posting and effectively utilizing learning targets aligns perfectly with these goals, contributing to #SustainableTeaching in classrooms.
While the benefits of learning targets for sustainability are inherent in their contributions to student understanding and personalized learning, it’s worth explicitly stating that to achieve truly sustainable teaching, we must prioritize learner empowerment, streamline planning and preparation, and cultivate flexibility in our instructional approaches. These are core principles of creating sustainable teaching practices.
Student voice and choice are central to learner empowerment. However, voice, choice, and empowerment need not imply limitless decision-making. Learning targets, while establishing clear boundaries for what students are learning, do not dictate the content, process, or product of that learning. As illustrated in the examples of personalized learning, the boundaries provided by learning targets promote sustainability and instructional clarity, while simultaneously granting students appropriate agency and autonomy in how they engage with the learning target. Just as students can explore the relationship between area and perimeter using diverse tools and methods, learning targets offer a framework that supports access for learners with varied needs – from concrete to representational to abstract understanding. Student choice within this framework enables sustainable personalization through their empowered agency.
Shifting from Compliance to Meaningful Integration
Unfortunately, in some educational settings, learning targets are still implemented primarily for the sake of compliance. This context explains why some teachers may feel resentful or frustrated when administrators assess them negatively for not displaying learning targets.
For administrators and school leaders, observing a decline in the use of learning targets should be viewed as valuable formative data for professional development. The key questions to ask are: What changes in professional learning are needed to help teachers truly grasp the value of learning targets? How can the effective implementation of learning targets make teachers’ workloads lighter and their teaching practices more sustainable?
By focusing on these questions, rather than simply enforcing compliance, we can foster an environment where learning targets become an integral component of a sustainable and effective instructional framework. This shift will be mutually advantageous for all stakeholders. Teachers will gain clarity and boundaries that reduce complexity in their teaching; administrators and coaches will gain a clearer understanding of student learning during classroom visits; and most importantly, learners will gain the clarity they need to make informed choices in the classroom, becoming active partners in personalizing their learning and enhancing their agency.
