L1 4 3

=Course learning objectives are regularly monitored to ensure that they address the full range of cognitive outcomes.=

Evidence
To improve e-learning outcomes it is important to learn from past mistakes, according to Ehrmann (2002), who argues that tracking progress is not only necessary to stay on course but also to identify solvable problems that can attract fresh resources (p. 55). The results of monitoring should be used to inform ongoing and new development, and to support resources and strategy. Information on performance can be used as a tool for improving quality, but only if the information is disseminated. Such validation of e-learning practices and resources is a significant stage in the full cycle of organisational learning that describes success in terms of ‘student performance, student satisfaction, staff experience, and cost effectiveness, as judged in relation to the original intentions’ (Salmon, 2000, p. 236). Salmon discusses validating as one of six activities in the iterative process of creating an effective learning organisation infrastructure that enables ‘the system to learn about itself’ (p. 237).

Learning outcomes are not merely cognitive. ‘In addition to learning outcomes in the cognitive domain, researchers [are] also interested in learning outcomes in the affective domain, such as students’ attitudes, satisfaction, and perceptions of the online environment’ (Tallent-Runnels et al. 2006). We might also be interested in students’ perceptions of their own learning experience.

Resources
Florida State University uses different verbs (6 levels) which correspond to Blooom’s (1956) hierarchy of cognitive levels of learning objectives. It is also noted that learning objective domains can include cognitive, psychomotor and affective outcomes. Details and examples of some Florida State learning objectives, and the process by which they are created, can be found here:

http://med.fsu.edu/education/FacultyDevelopment/PDF/writingobjectives.pdf