Are learning objectives a waste of time?

In medical affairs and medical communications, learning objectives often feel like a formality. Many medical writers, trainers, and scientific educators have experienced the same situation. A training module is already designed. The scientific story is clear. Then someone asks for three learning objectives for the slide deck or the eLearning module.

At that point the exercise can feel mechanical. Sentences are written using verbs like “analyze,” “distinguish,” or “evaluate.” They satisfy a template but do not seem to improve the material. The science is already strong. The narrative already works.

Because of this, many professionals conclude that learning objectives are unnecessary.

That criticism is understandable. Many learning objectives are vague and impossible to evaluate. They are often added after the training is already complete. In those cases, they function more like documentation than design.

But the criticism overlooks a problem that shows up repeatedly in medical education.

The hidden gap between experts and learners

People who work in medical affairs or scientific training usually have deep expertise. They know the mechanisms, the clinical trials, and the treatment landscape. Over time the structure of the topic becomes intuitive.

Psychologists call this the curse of knowledge. Once you understand something deeply, it becomes hard to see where others will struggle.

Learning objectives help make that invisible structure explicit. They force the designer to ask a simple question: what new capability should the learner gain?

The answer changes how the training is built.

Consider a dermatology training on psoriasis. A module could simply explain the IL-23/IL-17 pathway and summarize trial data for new therapies. But the real goal might be different. MSLs may need to explain why TYK2 inhibition affects downstream cytokine signaling. If that is the capability we want, the training must focus on mechanism comparison, not just pathway description.

The same issue appears in nephrology training on IgA nephropathy. A presentation might review complement activation and clinical trial endpoints. But if the real goal is to help MSLs interpret proteinuria reductions in phase 3 trials, the training needs case examples and data interpretation. The objective reveals the skill that matters and the content needed to help develop that skill.

In each case the science is not the problem. The challenge is translating expert understanding into a capability the learner can use.

Why strong objectives improve design

Learning objectives clarify what the learner should be able to do after the training.

Should they recognize a biomarker pattern?
Interpret clinical data?
Compare mechanisms of action?
Explain a therapeutic rationale to clinicians?

Each answer leads to a different learning design. Diagrams support recognition. Data sets support interpretation. Clinical scenarios support decision making.

Without that clarity, many sessions default to what experts naturally do. They present more information.

Information alone rarely changes professional behavior.