Read full article here:

To reach the deepest level of learning, teachers and students need a clear, shared understanding of the ultimate learning goal behind each lesson.

As Professor John Hattie said at the Visible Learning conference last year, teachers and students have clarity if they are able to answer the following three questions:

1. What am I learning?

2. Why am I learning it?

3. How will I know when I have learned it? 

Traditionally, the first question is addressed by the posting of learning objectives on whiteboards at the start of the lesson.

Despite these being of varying quality and depth, as teachers we are consistently good at the act of posting the objective. Working in schools across the U.S. and in different parts of the world in my role as a Chief Academic Officer at an edtech company, I make a point of asking teachers what motivates them to do this. Typical responses include: “because the district requires us to” or, “to let the students know what we are doing today.”

‘It is only when teachers know and can articulate why students are learning what they are learning that they are in a position to design learning experiences that are authentic, relevant, and capable of cultivating the curiosity of the learners.’

Far too frequently, this has become an act of compliance, with a focus on outcome rather than process and learning. Learning objectives are often posted alongside lists of “things we are going to do” rather than success criteria that articulate “what and how we are going to learn.” Success criteria are the rungs on the ladder that support students in meeting the requirement of the learning objective.

They provide a common language for self-reflection and to measure progress in terms of where students are and where they need to go next. They present learning as a journey, as opposed to the binary “I can” or I can’t” post-lesson review offered by the exclusive use of a learning objective. Learning objectives without success criteria lack value.

A Curious Proposal

It is critical to the process of learning that students have the same understanding as the teacher in terms of what is going on in any lesson and what they should be learning as a result of doing. With this in mind, I propose an end to learning objectives that require students to operate exclusively at depth of knowledge (DOK) level 1. Breaking down complex learning indicators into two or three separate learning objectives often results in a focus on testable knowledge rather than deep understanding. Three lessons pitched at DOK 1 will not deliver DOK 3 outcomes. You can see an enlightening visual representation of these levels of knowledge here.

I’m currently working with a cohort of middle school social studies teachers in South Carolina, who all now routinely pitch their learning intentions with a cognitive requirement of DOK 3, and use success criteria to develop learning progressions that are clearly articulated using verbs appropriate to the cognitive requirement of each stage of the learning journey. Consequently, when required to function at the all-important DOK level 1—answering “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where”—students understand the importance of the process in developing the deeper understanding of “why.”