Robert J. Marzano
Art & Science of Teaching
Targets, Objectives, Standards: How Do They Fit?
An internally
consistent
system helps
ensure that all
practitioners
use terms in the
same manner.
When I think about such constructs as learning targets, instructional objectives, learning goals, outcomes, education objectives, standards, and the
like, I’ve come to the conclusion that besides
having something to do with what students are
expected to know and be able to do, there’s no
consensus as to how these terms fit together.
A watershed event in the history of statements concerning what students should
know or be able to do was the publication of
Bloom’s taxonomy of education objectives (Bloom,
Engelhart, Furst, Hill, &
Krathwohl, 1956). Subsequently, different authors
have provided interpretations of these objectives (see
Airasian, 1994; Anderson
et al., 2001; Marzano &
Kendall, 2007).
Five Recommendations
In light of any confusions
or contradictions in the
literature, I have five recommendations that will help educators see how
these terms can align.
Robert J. Marzano is
cofounder and CEO
of Marzano Research
Laboratory in Denver,
Colorado, and executive
director of the Learning
Sciences Marzano
Center in Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida.
He is coauthor, with
Michael Toth, of Teacher
Evaluation That Makes a
Difference: A New Model
for Teacher Growth and
Student Achievement
(ASCD, 2013).
1. Create an internally consistent system.
An internally consistent system helps ensure
that all practitioners use terms—such as learning
targets, instructional objectives, and learning
goals—in the same manner. Ideally, this effort
should be conducted at the district level. If
the district doesn’t offer such a system, it’s best
to create one at the school level. If the school
doesn’t have one, collaborative teams might
create one on their own.
goals—start with statements of what students
should know and be able to do in a single unit of
instruction.
It’s useful to think in terms of two types of
objectives. Declarative objectives are informa-
tional. The unit objective of a social studies
teacher might be for students to understand
and be able to explain the generalization that
a region’s geography can have a significant
effect on a country’s future. Procedural objectives
address skills and processes. A health teacher’s
unit objective might be for
students to be able to use a
strategy for refusing to do
things that might be det-
rimental to their physical
or mental health. Both
objectives can easily be
addressed in a single unit of
instruction.
Objectives commonly
fit within much broader
statements of what students
should know and be able
to do, which we commonly
call standards. The unit
objective for the social studies teacher might
relate to one part of a standard that states that
students will understand and be able to explain
the various factors that influence a country’s
development—one factor being geography. The
unit objective for the health teacher might relate
to one part of a standard that states that stu-
dents will understand and be able to use strat-
egies that enhance their physical and mental
well-being—one strategy being refusal skills.
2. Start with objectives that focus on a single
unit of instruction.
Whatever you decide to call them—learning
targets, instructional objectives, learning
3. Break the objective into a learning
progression.
A learning progression describes the stages
of understanding or skill that lead to fully
developed declarative or procedural objectives.
Thinking through the learning progression for
a specific objective greatly enhances a teacher’s
