Effective Instructions Begin with Learning Goals, Not Learning Objectives
Right ISD Series
A New Standard for Designing Learning Experiences: Writing Learning Goal with the PATH Framework /
Un Nuevo Estándar para Diseñar Experiencias de Aprendizaje: Estrategia de Establecimiento de Metas de Aprendizaje Basada en PATH
This article explains why effective instruction begins not with learning objectives but with a clear learning goal. It introduces the P.A.T.H framework (Purpose, Aspiration, Transfer, Horizon) as a practical guide for educators to define meaningful learning goals and connect them to objectives and learning activities.
Este artículo explica que una enseñanza efectiva comienza no con los objetivos específicos, sino con un propósito de aprendizaje claro. Presenta el marco P.A.T.H (Propósito, Aspiración, Transferencia, Horizonte) como una guía práctica para que los educadores definan propósitos significativos y los conecten con los objetivos y las actividades de aprendizaje.
Have you ever been asked in the middle of a instruction, “Why are we learning this?”
Have you ever struggled to explain what learners actually gained after the session?
Or found yourself unsure about the core of your instruction even when you had plenty of content to teach?
If you answered “yes” to any of these, then having clear instructional (learning) goals and objectives can make your teaching significantly more powerful.
I. Why Do We Need Learning Objectives?
1. Education is not the delivery of content—it is the design of learner transformation.
A instruction is not merely a transfer of information. A instruction must clarify what learners will be able to do as a result. To achieve this, we design learning objectives—our instructional “destination.” Learning objectives provide the essential direction instructors need to structure a instruction and design learner activities and assessments. They also serve as the concrete basis for answering the question, “What did we learn?” once the session ends. Different organizations may use different terms—learning goals, instructional objectives, educational objectives—each with slightly different emphases. For the purpose of this article, these terms are used broadly to describe the intended transformation in the learner.
2. Instructional design is not linear—it is cyclical.
Many instructional design theories present a linear sequence of Objectives → Content → Assessment, but real instruction preparation rarely follows such a straight line.
Often, a concept, case, or activity pops into our minds first. Then we work backward: “What capability do I want learners to gain through this activity?” This leads us to refine and sharpen the objective. Instructional design happens through continuous adjustment—cycling among objectives, content, assessment, and activities. What matters is not where you start, but whether these four components are ultimately aligned. In this sense, setting learning objectives can be the first step, but it can also be the step we return to, revising it after content and assessment ideas emerge.
3. Don’t keep your learning objectives only in your head—make them explicit.
Many instructors have learning goals in mind, but don’t state them clearly, write them down, or articulate them in observable, learner-centered terms.
Instruction planning often starts with:
“What do I know?”
“What materials should I show?”
…instead of asking:
“What should learners be able to do by the end of this session?”
This is especially common in lecture-heavy classes or expert talks, where instructors rely on intuition—“I’ll just share as much as I know.” There are many reasons this happens:
Underestimating the importance of writing objectives (“Why bother writing it down when I already know what to teach?”)
Believing objectives are unnecessary (“I’m a good lecturer even without them.”)
Assuming the curriculum already includes them (“It’s already in the program guide.”)
Expecting learners to figure things out themselves
Preferring spontaneous, reaction-based teaching to planned structure
Some instructors focus heavily on preparing materials rather than designing learning. Others avoid writing objectives because doing it well does require careful thought and effort. But instructional design is not an abstract, complicated theory—it is a practical thinking tool that turns vague instruction planning into structured, intentional teaching. Practicing the skill of writing learning objectives—based on the question “What will learners be able to do if this instruction succeeds?”—can transform the effectiveness of your instruction.
II. What Is the Difference Between Learning Goals and Learning Objectives?
1. Distinguishing the Roles of the Two Concepts
We often say “learning objectives,” but in many cases we are actually referring to learning goals. Strictly speaking, learning objectives define the specific achievements learners should be able to demonstrate after a session and are directly tied to assessment. Learning goals, on the other hand, express the broader direction and philosophy that an organization or society seeks from education. They reveal what the educator considers fundamentally important. The term goal may feel less familiar or less frequently used than objective, which is one reason the distinction is often overlooked.
In instruction planning:
A learning goal answers the question:
“What broad understanding or capacity should learners develop through this instruction?”Learning objectives answer the question:
“What should learners actually be able to do after the instruction to achieve that goal?”
Because goals and objectives play different roles, separating them is standard practice—and doing so improves the quality of instructional design.
In summary, learning goals set the direction, while learning objectives specify the performance criteria for realizing that direction.
Learning Goals ㅣ Learning Objectives
Definition Broad, long-term direction the instruction aims for ㅣ What learners can specifically do after the instruction
Scope Wide, abstract ㅣ Narrow, concrete
Focus Educational intention, instructional direction ㅣ Observable learner performance
Form General, overarching statements ㅣ Specific, measurable, behavior-based statements
Example “Learners develop critical thinking skills.”ㅣ “Learners identify at least three logical fallacies in a given argument.”
However, in practice these principles are often not followed. In Korea, for example, the proportion of instructors who consistently apply the SMART criteria for learning objectives may be only 20–30%. Why does this happen? I have reflected on several possible reasons.
2. Cultural Challenges in Distinguishing Goals and Objectives (Differences in how abstract vs. concrete educational aims are valued)
In many Asian countries, abstract and idealistic educational aims (e.g., cultivating character, developing moral individuals) tend to be valued more highly. Conversely, objectively measurable, behavior-based objectives are sometimes seen as overly technical or even diminishing the dignity of education. As a result, learning objectives may receive less attention. In some cultures, the distinction between goals and objectives is simply not well established. In non-Western countries, the term “goal” often lacks a clear instructional counterpart, so both concepts get blended under a single general idea of “educational aims.”
In contrast, in English-speaking contexts, goals and objectives are clearly differentiated and are foundational elements of ISD (Instructional Systems Design). But in cultures where the language does not offer parallel terms, educators must rely on explanations rather than direct translation. For example, when conducting an ISD workshop for faculty at a national university in Vietnam, I found it difficult to identify translation equivalents that clearly separated “goal” from “objectives,” which confused participants.
ISD originated in contexts such as the U.S. military, industrial training, and corporate education, emphasizing behaviorism, measurability, and systematic processes. These principles align well with Western rationalist and industrialized education philosophies. However, in collectivistic and relational learning cultures common across Asian countries, such approaches may feel unfamiliar or even uncomfortable.
3. So How Should We Approach This? The Need for Cultural Mediation
Based on ISD workshop experiences—such as sessions with faculty at Vietnam National University—it is clear that cultural mediation or cultural adaptation is necessary. Instead of directly transferring terminology, explanations should be adapted to the educational context and language norms of that culture. For example:
Learning goals can be framed as “the direction of the instruction,” “the educator’s intention,” or “the instructional philosophy.”
Learning objectives can be explained as “the concrete results learners must demonstrate” or “the criteria for assessment.”
As global communities expand, these cultural translation challenges are becoming more common. In many Asian contexts, learning goals are readily accepted, but learning objectives—or performance objectives—are less culturally familiar, sometimes absent in vocabulary, or merged under a single term. Therefore, to understand ISD properly, cultural and linguistic mediation needs to precede theoretical explanation. One effective approach is to link learning goals and learning objectives through practical questions, such as:
“To fulfill this educational intention (goal), what behaviors must learners demonstrate?”
“If students must answer certain problems on an exam, what specific objective does that represent?”
“If we consider a instruction ‘good,’ what should learners be able to do as evidence of that?”
Using culturally meaningful examples and contextualized explanations can greatly enhance understanding and acceptance.
III. Where Do Learning Goals Come From?
In this article, goals and objectives are intentionally distinguished. In many cases, “objectives” is used when “goals” are actually meant. However, learning goals refer to direction or intention, while learning objectives refer to concrete performance or outcomes. The guidelines for describing both can be summarized as follows. Regardless of how well instructors write them, there are well-established standards for creating learning objectives, such as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) and ABCD (Audience, Behavior, Condition, Degree). These frameworks are widely recognized (and discussed in another article). However, learning goals lack similarly clear guidelines and often remain abstract. Because goals are inherently broad declarations of direction and educational philosophy, they tend to be viewed less as structured statements and more as value-driven declarations.
Yet for educators and instructional designers, having a certain level of formal guidance for learning goals can help ensure consistency in instruction design and clarify the hierarchy between goals and objectives. Therefore, I propose the following guidelines for crafting “good learning goals.” Although learning goals should not be overly specific—and do not require SMART-style measurability—they must convey a clear direction, intention, or educational value.
Characteristics of Good Learning Goals
A good learning goal should:
Present a broad and aspirational vision while still connecting to the practical context of the instruction
Reflect an educational philosophy or core values (e.g., learner-centeredness, critical thinking)
Focus on what the learner can become—their attitudes, dispositions, and ways of thinking
Serve as a higher-level concept that can be connected to specific learning objectives
Importantly, a learning goal is not simply a statement of the educator’s personal philosophy or values. A strong learning goal emerges from analyzing societal needs, educational contexts, and learners’ real needs. In other words, before asking “What do I want to teach?”, we must first consider “Why must this be taught?” and provide clear external justification.
Thus, learning goals should not be constructed purely from the educator’s perspective; they should result from synthesizing broader systems—including societal expectations, the realities of the educational environment, learners’ needs, and the goals of the curriculum. A learning goal grounded in needs analysis secures educational direction and legitimacy, and it gives coherence and meaning to the learning objectives, instructional activities, and assessments that follow.
The Starting Point: Needs Analysis
The foundational starting point for deriving learning goals is needs analysis, which includes:
Organizational and societal needs:
Changing societal conditions, civic competencies, community expectations, and desired attitudes or knowledge within organizationsLearner needs:
Current skill levels, interests, backgrounds, and gapsCurricular needs:
Institutional goals and national or organizational educational directionsWorkplace or practice-based needs:
(Especially in vocational, corporate, and adult education) Alignment with actual tasks, responsibilities, or real-world performance
Accordingly, learning goals emerge through the following process:
Societal expectations & learner needs
→ analysis and synthesis
→ reconstructed through the educator’s philosophy and instructional direction
→ articulated as learning goals
Learning goals created through this process do more than express ideals or values—they provide a compelling explanation of why a instruction or curriculum exists and serve as the foundational starting point for instructional design.
IV. The P.A.T.H. Framework for Establishing Learning Goals
Based on the needs analysis described earlier, I suggest using four key principles when formulating learning goals. These are not mandatory rules, so there is no need to feel burdened. Rather, these guidelines come from my personal experience over more than 30 years as a Learning Designer and teaching graduate-level courses on “Design and Development of Educational Programs,” and they have proven to be practically helpful.
The four elements for articulating learning goals are:
Purpose – The ultimate reason or aim of the instruction or program
Aspiration – The desired change or ideal learner outcome
Transfer – The applicability of learning to real-life contexts
Horizon – The scope and direction of the goal within the overall curriculum
In short, the P.A.T.H. framework can be used to guide the articulation of learning goals.
1. The Meaning of PATH and Its Connection to Learning Goals
In English, a path refers to the road, the direction to a destination, and the journey as a whole. Similarly, a learning goal serves as a milestone showing learners “where they are headed,” making the metaphor of a path highly appropriate. Understanding the metaphorical connection between each element of PATH and a path can clarify the meaning of learning goals:
P — Purpose: Why begin this journey?
The Purpose in learning defines the starting point: what learners should fundamentally achieve through this learning experience.
→ “Why should we walk this path?”A — Aspiration: What does the desired path look like?
Aspiration represents the learner’s envisioned growth or who they want to become. It’s more than a simple goal—it’s like the scenery along the dream path.
→ “How do learners want to grow while walking this path?”T — Transfer: How will what is learned be applied?
A good path impacts future journeys. Likewise, the key in learning is whether learners can apply what they’ve learned in real life or other contexts.
→ “Where and how will the wisdom gained from this path be applied?”H — Horizon: What broader perspective opens at the end of the path?
Horizon represents the new insights, possibilities, or expanded vision learners gain after completing the course. Learning is not just about reaching a destination but opening doors to new journeys.
→ “What new possibilities emerge at the end of this path?”
In summary, PATH provides four guiding questions that help learners design their growth journey:
Why are we walking this path? (Purpose)
What kind of person do we want to become? (Aspiration)
What can we take with us into life? (Transfer)
What can we see at the end of the path? (Horizon)
The term PATH not only functions as an acronym but also metaphorically conveys that learning is a journey of designing one’s own path—a question naturally aligned with “Where is your class heading?”.
2. Examples of Learning Goals Using the PATH Framework
Example 1: History Unit
Typical Learning Goal:
“This unit helps students learn history and understand important events.”PATH-Enhanced Learning Goal:
“This unit aims to help learners go beyond rote memorization of historical events, critically analyze their impact on contemporary society, and develop into citizens who understand diverse perspectives in history. This process lays the foundation for critical thinking and social understanding within the broader history curriculum, allowing learners to apply these insights to explore and engage with current social issues.”
PATH Analysis:
Purpose: Develop citizenship through critical analysis and understanding of diverse historical perspectives
Aspiration: Grow into socially engaged citizens beyond passive learners
Transfer: Apply historical insights to explore and engage with current social issues
Horizon: A foundational stage in the history curriculum for critical thinking and social understanding
Example 2: Critical Thinking & Communication
Learning Goal:
“This course aims to help learners critically evaluate information and others’ arguments, construct logical opinions, and develop responsible attitudes toward social issues. It serves as an intermediate stage in the curriculum for developing critical thinking and communication, forming a foundation for self-directed inquiry and socially responsible action.”
PATH Analysis:
Purpose: Critically engage with others’ arguments; cultivate social responsibility
Aspiration: Develop logical reasoning and civic attitudes
Transfer: Apply interpretive skills to information and discourse in real life
Horizon: Intermediate step in curriculum, bridging to self-directed inquiry and social practice courses
Example 3: Civic Education
Learning Goal:
“This unit aims to help learners analyze contemporary social issues from multiple perspectives, empathetically understand others’ viewpoints, and express their own opinions based on evidence. This stage deepens critical thinking and communication within the civic education program, leading to social participation projects and real-life application of perspectives.”
PATH Analysis:
Purpose: Analyze social issues and express reasoned viewpoints
Aspiration: Empathetically understand others; construct evidence-based positions
Transfer: Apply learning in daily life and public dialogue to shape social perspectives
Horizon: Intermediate stage in civic education; connects to social participation projects
Example 4: Mathematics — Functions
Learning Goal:
“This unit aims to help learners understand the concepts and graphs of various functions and apply them to problem-solving, developing problem-solving skills. It serves as a core unit connecting algebra and geometry in the mathematics curriculum, enabling learners to apply knowledge in daily life and other subjects.”
PATH Analysis:
Purpose: Understand functions and develop problem-solving skills
Aspiration: Become active learners who apply mathematical thinking
Transfer: Apply knowledge to real-life and cross-disciplinary problems
Horizon: Core unit connecting algebra and geometry in the curriculum
Example 5: Science — Ecosystems
Learning Goal:
“This unit aims to help learners understand ecosystem components and interactions, fostering awareness of environmental issues and encouraging responsible actions. It belongs to the environment and sustainability domain in the science curriculum, allowing learners to apply learning to real-world environmental activities.”
PATH Analysis:
Purpose: Understand ecosystems and develop environmental responsibility
Aspiration: Grow into citizens concerned with environmental protection and action
Transfer: Apply learning to real environmental activities and decisions
Horizon: Science curriculum in the environment and sustainability domain
'
3. Notes on Applying PATH – Horizon (H) Is Optional
Including Horizon is not always necessary in learning goals. However, in instructional design documents or course plans, answering “Where does this course fit in the overall program?” can be highly useful. Horizon shows whether a course is part of a longer learning journey. It can be included directly in the goal statement or explained separately.
Regular course units: Include Horizon to clarify the course’s position in the overall curriculum
Camps, workshops, or single-session programs: Horizon can be omitted or simplified (e.g., “provides an introductory perspective”)
Workplace training: Briefly indicate where the session fits within the overall training program (e.g., “foundation” or “advanced”)
Elective courses: Horizon can be minimized to show connections with other courses or semester objectives
Example (no Horizon):
“This workshop aims to help teachers understand how to write learning objectives clearly using the SMART principles and apply them to their own teaching.”
Example (with Horizon):
“This unit aims to help learners analyze social issues from multiple perspectives and express their opinions logically. It is a core unit in the middle school communication curriculum, laying the foundation for subsequent debate and writing classes.”
Including Horizon in regular, sequenced courses is recommended, but it can be simplified or omitted in standalone workshops or special sessions.
V. Tips for Using PATH as a Practical Tool
By the time readers reach this section, the PATH framework may feel overwhelming. Writing out all four elements of a learning goal can take considerable thought and time, and for those unfamiliar, concepts like Horizon may feel abstract or complex. Additionally, trying to be too precise can trap your writing in formal, rigid language rather than natural educational phrasing. For everyday use, it is often sufficient to write learning goals at a practical, moderate level. PATH should not be treated as a “perfect formula”—instead, use it as a tool to clarify your thinking. Keep sentences short (1–2 lines). If you feel unsure, start with P and A, and add T and H later. Even short sentences are enough to communicate the essence to colleagues or learners.
Distinguish Core and Optional Elements
Core: Purpose and Aspiration are essential for articulating a learning goal.
Optional: Transfer and Horizon can be simplified or added later depending on the situation.
Start with Your Own Simple Sentence
Begin with a sentence like: “This class exists to [P: purpose].”
Later, naturally add the other PATH elements.
Focus on Direction Rather Than Perfection
The goal is to capture the intended direction rather than crafting a perfect sentence.
Once your purpose statement shows the direction, designing the next stages of the course becomes much easier.
Collaborative, Workshop-Style Writing
Work with a small team or colleagues rather than alone.
Sharing perspectives and feedback helps produce more natural, meaningful statements.
In conclusion, PATH is not a perfect answer; it is a framework for thinking. Use it as a tool to frequently check and clarify where your class is heading, rather than as a source of stress.
Simple PATH Writing Template
Based on a course or unit you are interested in, write your learning goal using the PATH framework:
This course (or unit) aims to help learners [A: become what kind of person] by [P: the reason/importance of the course].
This course is [H: positioned within the curriculum], and learners can apply what they have learned to [T: transfer/application].
The order of PATH elements can be adjusted according to your preference. Fill in the parentheses with appropriate expressions to define your class’s directional compass.
Core Questions and Example Sentences for Each PATH Element
P (Purpose): Why does this course exist?
→ “To help students understand social issues.”A (Aspiration): How do you want learners to grow?
→ “To become critical-thinking citizens.”T (Transfer): Where can learners apply what they have learned?
→ “In daily life and interpreting the news.”H (Horizon): Where does this course fit within the overall curriculum? (optional)
→ “It is part of the civic education curriculum.”
VI. Closing
So far, we have introduced a method for writing learning goals—something often overlooked in instructional design but practically necessary from a teaching perspective—using the PATH framework. However, PATH is not a formula for the “perfect answer”; it is a framework to expand your thinking. When constructing a learning goal using PATH, considering the following aspects together helps lay the foundation for a course where design and assessment naturally align:
P (Purpose): Why does this course exist?
A (Aspiration): What kind of transformed learner do you want to create?
T (Transfer): How will the learning connect to real life?
H (Horizon): Where does this course fit in the overall educational journey?
Note: During the writing process, ChatGPT (OpenAI) was used to help develop ideas on educational theories and to provide concrete examples and explanations. All content, however, is based on the author’s educational philosophy and interpretation, with AI serving solely as a supportive tool.
[Learning Design—Creating Together]
Learners are diverse, and so are courses. The PATH framework and perspectives introduced in this article are not final answers, but suggestions based on my experience and practical needs in the field. There may be methods better suited to your context or specific classroom. If you have thoughts, agreements, counterpoints, or additional suggestions based on your own teaching experience, please feel free to share them. Collaborating in this way contributes greatly to creating better learning design together.
