Comments on: Are Robert Mager’s performance-based learning objectives passé in today’s world of learning?

By: Anne

Anne — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:28:52 +0000

While I cannot speak to Robert Mager’s instructional design concepts, I recently discovered his vintage 1972 classic on “Goal Analysis” and found it very appropriate for today’s business world. I wrote my review here which you might be interested in reading:
http://www.beruly.com/?p=587

By: Bill Bartmann

Bill Bartmann — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:59:42 +0000

Excellent site, keep up the good work

By: Work from home

Work from home — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:34:03 +0000

This site rocks!

By: Bill Bartmann Scam

Bill Bartmann Scam — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:32:50 +0000

This site rocks!

By: RK Prasad

RK Prasad — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 09:34:13 +0000

Thanks Gary for your valuable comments. It was a knowledgeable insight on the topic.

By: Gary A. Williams

Gary A. Williams — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:33:22 +0000

Apologize for typo “Given an employee has exceeded . . .makes measurable improvement.” (not “measurable improves.”)

By: Gary A. Williams

Gary A. Williams — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:31:08 +0000

“Distinguish between . . .”–performance only, no condition, no criteria for success defined.
“Correct common . . .”–performance and condition, no criteria for success stated.
“Describe at least . . .”–performance and criteria, no condition.
Additionally, if the intent is to check learning as a Kirkpatrick level 2, then then the objective should effectively describe the means of testing. “Distinguish” and “Describe” may work if the testing is to identify from a list and write an answer on an open-ended assessment, respectively. “Correct common” is closer to something that may be on-the-job performance…possibly a standard reference manual (e.g. Strunk) is the criteria for the work as well as the objective. If the objective is targeting a Kirkpatrick Level 3 outcome, then “correct common” appears to work. I’m not sure that “distinguishing between positive and negative reinforcement” is what you want as an outcome on the job per se. More like “Given an employee has exceeded their production quota during the measurement period, demonstrate the use of postive reinforcement in such a way that the team’s production overall makes measurable improves.” Obviously this very exact in terms of performance objective and most instructional designers do not and will not go to this length to figure out what they want to accomplish with learning. (Which is why most soft skill training does not accomplish much that is measurable.)

By: RK Prasad

RK Prasad — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:18:09 +0000

Thanks Gary for your comments. It will be of great help to me if you can elaborate how these objectives fall short of Mager’s standards.

By: Gary A. Williams

Gary A. Williams — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:53:32 +0000

I hope you realize that the objectives presented as examples on this page do not actually meet Mager’s standards. I suppose you only wished to illustrate the specific aspect of Performance, Condition, and Criteria. However, it would have been more illustrative if you had used “extracts” of fully formed objectives. As written, I would reject these objectives.

By: Gary A. Williams

Gary A. Williams — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:46:15 +0000

Mager is absolutely correct. In application, the approach I take is to discover how the organization monitors, measures and controls performance. The performance management aspects of work should match the criterion-referenced performance objective of any training designed to support the worker performing their job tasks. The fact that most work has vague performance standards (and undefined conditions) creates performance misalignment. Mager’s approach will work beyond training design for setting the objectives for work performance. Mager is very compatible with Lean for People.