"TOO OFTEN, PEOPLE WOULD RATHER do something than think about the purpose of the doing" (Mager 1997). Such operating procedures are all the more seductive today. With so many stakeholders as enamoured with the vehicles of instruction as the instructional content, educators must be absolutely clear about their instructional goals; what and how they teach must align with what they want learners to be able to do. 

An effective designer recognizes both the value of goals as conceptual abstractions as well as the value of their many concrete manifestations. Designers who cruise effortlessly between these two goal polarities, the concrete and the abstract, produce effective instructional products because they do not lose sight of the "big picture" when they develop their instructional objectives. This brief essay and the accompanying diagrams:

1. Review how different analysis processes relate to different types of goals.
2. Model the results of refining abstract goals in such a way that the reader can observe how specific instructional objectives emerge.

"We don’t need so many names, but we do need the processes and contact with sources that are embodied in the analyses." (Rossett, 1999) Well, we still have to deal with these names; instructional design has its own vocabulary like any other field. Ambiguities like the loose definition of "goal analysis" may obscure understanding. For example, sometimes we equate goal analysis with gap analysis. At other times goal analysis describes that process through which we derive objectives during training needs assessment.

This essay assumes the reader has had some exposure to discussions concerning three relatively different types of goal statements: Goals, Behaviors and Performances, and Objectives. Look at the following continuum to review which analyses we use to refine our goals as well as when we employ these analyses.

This page does not intend, however, to describe the different analyses through which we refine goals. Rather, this page models their results. Seeing how such statements align on a goal continuum orients us because we can readily identify WHAT we really want, WHY we want it, and HOW we can achieve it.

Goal refinement typically targets 1 of 4 common implicit or explicit abstractions. Two explicit considerations center on whether goals state either 1. Unclear affective intentions or, 2. Vague adjective and adverb modifiers. These are what Bob Mager refers to as "fuzziness." Clarifying these most obvious ambiguities moves us from Goals to Optimal Behaviors and Performances. However, moving from Behaviors and Performances to Objectives typically involves clarifying two implicit variables: 3. Condition and, 4. Degree or criterion.

Imagine that there are too many bike accidents in your part of town. In the following diagram, observe how a vague, unobservable Goal such as wanting riders to be more safety conscious localizes as observable Behaviors and, later, as measurable Objectives. 
The "continuum" aspect of this diagram reflects a curious aspect of goal precision: its relative nature. For example, one audience might understand implicit conditions whereas others might require more clarification. So, while there are a number of ways to refine goals, usability ultimately determines sufficient specificity.

A.G. Silverman ，Instructional Designer