QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

NGUYỄN THỊ THIÊN LÝ

PHẠM THỊ THÚY NGỌC
CLASS: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS – K18

CLEAR LEARNING TARGETS

(END-OF-COURSE ASSIGNMENT)

QUY NHON CITY – JUNE 2016

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 3

II. TYPES OF LEARNING TARGETS ....................................................... 4

III. DECONSTRUCTING STANDARDS ..................................................... 9

1. Determine the Target Type ................................................................... 10

2. Identify the Prerequisite or Underlying Knowledge, Reasoning, and/or

Skills ......................................................................................................... 10

3. Check Our Work for Alignment and Reasonableness .......................... 10

IV. BENEFITS OF CLEAR LEARNING TARGETS ................................. 12

V. CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 13

REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 14

2
 I. INTRODUCTION
According to Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis (2006), clear
learning targets are one of keys to quality classroom assessment, or rather, a
necessary foundation for sound assessment. They are often considered as the
GPS used in cars, which provides an accurate roadmap or guidelines to help
students reach their destination. Like determining clear purposes in the
assessment process, there is also a must to start out with a clear vision of
what will be assessed so as to enable students to determine where they are
headed. As to teachers who are in charge of making assessment, their
assessment will be disoriented and reasonless if lacking clear targets. James
Popham (2003) put this best when he stated: “Teachers who truly understand
what they want their students to accomplish will almost surely be more
instructionally successful than teachers whose understanding of hoped-for-
student accomplishments are murky.” Clear targets, together with clear
purposes, help us design assessments in such a way so as to align with the
targets and serve the purposes. Once learning targets are apparent to teachers
and students, the next steps of assessment are ensured to be clear and
realizable.
We can conclude from points analyzed above that learning targets are
statements of intended learning, but have to be based on the standards,
which explains why learning targets are referred with different labels in
reality, e.g. “Content Standards,” “benchmarks” (in science); “Grade Level
Indicators,” “Grade Level Expectations” (in social studies); “Performance
Expectations” (in Maths); or “Learning Outcomes,” “Lesson Objectives,”
“Learning Progressions,” “Learning Intentions” and so forth. However, it is
highly important that learning targets differ relatively from standards. Not
only are learning targets what teachers want their students to know and be

3
able to do at the end of any given time, but also in student-friendly language
and specific to the lesson for the day and directly connected to assessment.
The relationship between learning targets and the standard will be
mainstreamed in the analysis of types of learning targets, how to deconstruct
standards, and benefits of clear learning targets in this paper.

II. TYPES OF LEARNING TARGETS

In fact, learning targets have remained a matter for debate of educators
so far; at the same time, a great number of classification systems of learning
targets have been introduced. The most common classification system is of
Bloom B., featured by his taxonomy on the knowledge-based cognitive
domain (1956): Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis,
Synthesis, and Evaluation. This taxonomy, however, is merely one of three
types of learning targets given by Bloom, focusing on three facets -
knowledge, skill and disposition – with a hierarchical system of sub-
categories in each. McMillan J. (2001) and Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, &
Chappuis (2006) share a relatively alike categorization framework of
learning targets, involving five main types: Knowledge, Reasoning, Skill,
Product, and Disposition Targets. These also have sub-targets of each but
without hierarchy, which is supposed to facilitate teachers to opt for
appropriate learning targets. No matter what the classification system is
used, its learning targets have to be determined as observable and
measurable actions. The following are the five learning targets described in
detail.
Knowledge targets are the general concept of all factual information,
procedural knowledge, and conceptual understandings which, in the simplest
way, respectively refer to mastery of knowing something, of understanding

4
something and of knowing how to do something. It is highly necessary to
highlight the great importance of knowledge targets on laying a foundation
for other types of learning targets, or rather, forming underlying targets.
They are, therefore, considered to be easily identified by the verbs they
contain such as know, list, name, identify, use, understand, explain, describe,
tell, define, label, match, choose, recall, recognize, etc. Let us see the
example below:
(1) Understand the agreement between subjects and verbs.
This is a knowledge target, or rather, a conceptual understanding target
because students are expected to be able to explain the concept.
Reasoning targets are intended to develop the ability to use knowledge
and understanding to figure things out and to solve problems. It means that
they focus on the thought or reasoning processes that students use and apply
knowledge in authentic contexts. They are also identified by the verbs they
contain such as analyze, compare, contrast, synthesize, classify, infer,
deduce, evaluate, predict, hypothesize, draw conclusions, summarize,
estimate, solve problems, justify, and generalize. For example:
(2) Compare simple present and simple past tense.
Reasoning processes are often categorized into one of six patterns of
reasoning: inference, analysis, comparison, classification, evaluation, and
synthesis. We find that these patterns and Bloom‟s taxonomy are similar to
some extent, especially at higher levels of the taxonomy. It means that
Bloom implied reasoning targets are embedded within his knowledge
targets. It also can be understood that Chappuis et al. distinguished
reasoning and knowledge targets, separating reasoning from knowledge
targets in order to bring an adequate position to the knowledge ones.

5
However, Bloom has his own reason for the choice of classifying which we
will discuss later-on.
Skill targets focus on the development of proficiency in doing
something where the process is concerned most. They usually refer
demonstrations or physical performances which can be observed, so it is
understandable that they are often recognizable with verbs implying
performances such as observe, focus attention, listen, perform, do, question,
work, read, speak, assemble, operate, use, measure, model, explore. For
example:
(3) Read aloud a text with fluency and expression.
Product targets, as their label, focus on developing the ability to create
tangible products that meet certain teaching and assessment standards of
quality and effectivity. They are thus identified by corresponding verbs such
as design, produce, create, develop, make, write, draw, represent, display,
model, construct. For example:
(4) Write an essay.
Disposition targets appear with a raise of awareness of the importance
of affective factors in learning, i.e. attitudes, motivations and feelings of
students. “See grammar as important to learn” is an example of disposition
target. Dispositions thus may be considered nonacademic, intuitive and
immeasurable because of influenced by students‟ experience. Consequently,
we hardly ever found them in our curriculum or lesson plans, causing a
misunderstanding that they are unimportant. In fact, disposition targets help
students self-conscious about who they are as learners so that teachers can
reconsider their lectures and perhaps adapt them for students‟ learning.
Now some people may find that all learning targets are clear and easy
to be identified thanks to the verbs they contain. If so, they are considering

6
the targets at the surface level. In fact, the lines between the types of
learning targets blur, resulting in misidentifying one‟s type. Though it is not
absolutely precise but in order to simplify, the system involving knowledge,
reasoning, skill and product target will be illustrated by a model of G.
Cantor, which describes the relationship between the set and the subsets.

K R S P

Any learning target can be a set with at least one subset in which
knowledge-based domain is always the set and may be the subset itself. The
reason for this have mentioned above that knowledge target is always the
underpinnings of other types of learning target. If a learning target is
determined at the knowledge level, then all underlying targets must be at the
knowledge level. The underlying targets may be factual information,
procedural knowledge or conceptual understanding, or may be some, or even
all of them. Indeed, returning to (1), that target actually does not hold
conceptual understanding only. It is named conceptual understanding just
because conceptual understanding is at the heart of the learning. In fact, it
also holds factual information underlying, i.e. students are also required to
identify what subjects and verbs are.
Reasoning targets often have knowledge components. For example, in
(2), the learning target implies that students have to understand simple
present and simple past tense prior to comparison, which is obviously an

7
underlying knowledge target. It is, however, important to emphasize that
there are no skill or product components in a reasoning target. Any learning
target which is classified into reasoning but has signal verbs representing
skill or product targets is misidentified – it must be a skill or product target
rather than a reasoning target.
The cases of skill and product targets are similar. A skill target always
has knowledge underpinnings and sometimes reasoning as well, so a product
target, in its turn, requires knowledge and reasoning, and sometimes skill
underpinnings. It means that a product target can be able to be underpinned
by all other kinds of learning target. In other words, there appear
overlappings among the target types. However, which type a learning target
is depends on what it calls for in accordance with the standard of the lesson.
So far, we have accepted that there is no hierarchy among the types of
learning targets, but here we temporarily suppose that the four target types
are located under a hierarchy with the ascending order ranging from
knowledge, reasoning, skill to product targets. So, a learning target may be
attributed to a level lower than its nature if we intend to emphasize the
underlying target at that level. For example,
(5) Understand analysis and synthesis methods
Can be a knowledge or a reasoning target. If we intend to assess how
much students understand the methods and this is the final goal, it is
attributed to a knowledge target. By contrast, if we intend to require students
understand the methods to apply into practice (e.g. to solve a problem), then
it is attributed to a reasoning target. This complication contributes to explain
why the lines between the types of learning targets blur.
We have just inferred that a product target can covered all other target
types. Thus, once we determine one as a product target, we must possess

8
four all target types in our lesson plan. It also means that if we misidentify
any product target, we will completely fail. This could happen in reality that
we misunderstand a product target and an activity. For instance, returning to
(4), is “write an essay” a product target or merely an activity? It could be
either. If we focus on the creation of the essay (i.e. the essay is the real
objective for assessment), it is a product target. However, if writing an essay
purposes evaluating the way students accomplish the essay (e.g. to assess
their abilities of mastering grammar, constructing and organizing ideas),
then it is likely an activity.
Returning to the main points, in brief, though Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis,
& Chappuis (2006) emphasized that there is no hierarchy of difficulty
among the types of learning targets, they acknowledged the relationship of
entailment among some patterns of reasoning, as well as among the types of
learning targets. It means that they accepted to some extent the presence of
the hierarchy among learning targets in an implicit way, which can
contribute to explain in part why Bloom‟s idea have been preferable so far.

III. DECONSTRUCTING STANDARDS

Deconstruction a standard is often recommended when our standards
are not so clear that we have to require further refinement or interpretation in
order to know exactly what to teach and assess. Deconstruction a standard
means breaking it down into manageable learning targets (i.e., Knowledge,
Reasoning, Skills, and Products) so that both teachers and students can
identify accurately what students should know and be able to do. The
process for deconstructing a standard includes three steps as follows.

9
 1. Determine the Target Type
To determine this, we should take advantage of the hierarchy
mentioned above. It means that we need determine what the standard‟s
ultimate goal is. If it is the creation of a product, then it must be
accompanied with other goals, consisting of the acquisition of knowledge,
the development of reasoning capabilities, and the demonstration of a
physical skill.
2. Identify the Prerequisite or Underlying Knowledge, Reasoning,
and/or Skills
At this step, we identify particular learning targets by answering the
following four questions:
 What knowledge will students need to demonstrate the intended
learning?
 What patterns of reasoning will they need to master, if any?
 What skills are required, if any?
 What product development capabilities must they acquire, if any?
However, in order to identify the exact targets for each types, it is
important to notice that we do not think of how you will teach the standard
or how you will assess it, we only focus on what students will need to know
and be able to do.
3. Check Our Work for Alignment and Reasonableness
Like any other works, we should review the standard which has just
been deconstructed. On the one hand, we check for alignment to ensure that
all learning targets we have listed are truly necessary to accomplish the
ultimate target without any information about how we might assess them.
On the other hand, we check for reasonableness to control the number of
enabling targets we have listed. We do not list more learning targets than

10
necessary for students at their level and, of course, do not make targets
which go far beyond their real level. The difficulty of a learning target can
be able to exceed their current level, but should be controlled so as not to
exceed far their zone of proximal developmental (ZPD). Briefly, the learning
targets listed have to be guaranteed for reasonableness in both quantity and
quality in order to form the scaffolding to each student‟s academic success.
Our work, however, have not accomplished yet. During checking for
alignment and reasonableness, we also should communicate our learning
target to our students - who are the subject of learning. It means that they
have a right to be aware of what they are to learn. Letting students in on
where they‟re going and what they‟re expected to learn can boost their
motivation and achievement. However, it is important to highlight that
sharing our list of learning targets to our students is only useful if the targets
are both understandable and assessable by students. To do that, there is a
need to convert learning targets into student-friendly language so students
can see the path to their success.
First of all, when reviewing a list of learning targets for an upcoming
lesson or unit, we should ask ourselves what we want students to know,
understand, and be able to do by the end of the lesson or unit.
Secondly, we make our list of targets more student-friendly by
rewriting the targets in “I will” or “I can” or “I will be able to” format, or
framing the targets in simple, age-appropriate language that students are
likely to understand. A well-written target should be clear, specific, and tell
students what they‟re trying to achieve and let them assess their ability to
achieve it.

11
 Thirdly, we discuss the targets with students so that they are clear about
what they are aiming for and why it is worthwhile. If required, we might
willingly refine the targets.
Next, we regularly refer to the list to show students how the things they
are doing in class (tasks, activities, assignments) relate to the things they are
supposed to be learning (targets).
Finally, we remind our students to revisit the list of targets throughout
the lesson or unit to self-assess and self-monitor their progress.

IV. BENEFITS OF CLEAR LEARNING TARGETS

Paul Black et al. (2003) stated “By setting out clearly in their own
minds what they wanted the students to learn, the teachers would be in a
position to find out what the „gap‟ was between the state of students‟ current
learning and the learning goal and to be able to monitor that „gap‟ as it
closed.” This is one of the various benefits of clear learning targets. Not only
do clear targets benefit teachers, students but also their parents. Specifically,
clear targets can:
 Help both teachers and students identify correctly what students know
and do not know and their level of achievement;
 Provide teachers with a plan of next steps in instruction;
 Help teachers control their lesson by avoiding the problem of too
much to teach and too little time;
 Provide teachers with criterion to give detailed, descriptive feedback
to students;
 Help to know if the assessment adequately covers and samples what
teachers taught;
 Provide a foundation for collaborative planning among teachers;

12
  Facilitate assessment for learning by help teachers and students to
keep track of student learning target by target,
 Have students self-assess or set goals likely to help them learn more;
 Facilitate communication with parents

V. CONCLUSION
Determining learning targets is a prerequisite for teaching in general
and for assessment in particular. A learning target provides a clear direction
for both teachers and students, resulting in meaningful learning and
increased student achievement. No clear learning target means different
directions. Without clear learning targets, both teachers and students are
supposed as flying blind. No matter what teachers decide students need to
learn, not much will happen until students understand what they are
supposed to learn during a lesson and set their sights on learning it. When
the goal of teaching does not match of learning, the assessment for any
purposes does not make sense. Teachers, in fact, should play a role as a
temporary substitute for students to make learning targets for students‟
learning, and thus be in charge of helping their students master those
learning targets as well as the creators in order for them to show their best,
which will make the assessment of and for learning more precise and
meaningful.

13
 REFERENCES

1. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2003),
Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice, Maidenhead, U.K.:
Open University Press.
2. Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R., Arter, J. & Chappuis, S. (2006), Classroom
Assessment for Student Learning: Doing It Right - Doing It Well, New
Jersey, USA: Pearson House.
3. Popham, W. J. (2003), Test Better, Teach Better: The Instructional
Role of Assessment, Virginia, USA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

14