Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning outcomes: What are they? Who defines them? When and where are they defined?

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to illuminate the phenomenon of learning outcomes. Although a wide range of studies in education have examined the phenomenon in various ways, few have investigated how scholars themselves conceive of it. To provide insight into this issue, the paper explores the following questions: How is the term “learning outcome” defined? By whom? When? Where? The investigation is based on a document analysis of a selection of 33 scholarly written documents in which the concept is discussed. Findings indicate that there is a dominant established definition of the term learning outcome. However, a wide range of alternative definitions are also identified. These assert that learning outcomes involve more than what can be described in pre-specified and measurable terms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Diagram 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Quality Reform in Higher Education and the Knowledge Promotion reform in compulsory and upper secondary education and training, level 1–13 (www.kd.dep.no).

  2. The EQF was adopted by the European Parliament and Council on 23 April 2008. The core of the EQF are eight reference levels describing what a learner knows, understands and is able to do—‘learning outcomes’. Levels of national qualifications will be placed at one of the central reference levels, ranging from basic (Level 1) to advanced (Level 8). It will therefore enable much easier comparison between national qualifications and should also mean that people do not have to repeat learning if they move to another country. The EQF encourages countries to relate their qualifications systems or frameworks to the EQF by 2010 and to ensure that all new qualifications issued from 2012 carry a reference to the appropriate EQF level. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm.

  3. Condliffe Langemann (2000:xi) suggest that the science of education has been dominated by “…forces favoring a narrowly individualistic, behaviourally oriented and professionalized conception of educational study” and that the position of Thorndike “won” and that Dewey “lost”. This adds another perspective to the description of Ewell (2005).

  4. ISI (Institute for Scientific Information®) Web of Science® provides researchers, administrators, faculty, and students with access to the world’s leading citation databases. Authoritative, multidisciplinary content covers over 10,000 of the highest impact journals worldwide, including Open Access journals and over 110,000 conference proceedings. http://isiknowledge.com.

  5. ERIC—the Education Resources Information Center—is an online digital library of education research and information. ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the US Department of Education. ERIC provides ready access to education literature to support the use of educational research and information to improve practice in learning, teaching, educational decision-making, and research. (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/resources/html/about/about_eric.html).

  6. The journal Higher Education Management and Policy targets administrators and managers of institutions of higher education and researchers in the field of institutional management. It covers the field through articles and reports on research projects, and serves as a source of information on activities and events organised by OECD’s IMHE. www.puck.sourceoecd.org.

  7. See the website of the Australian Government. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/national_goals_for_schooling_in_the_twenty_first_century.htm.

References

  • Adam, S. (2004) Using learning outcomes. A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing “learning outcomes” at the local, national and international levels. UK Bologna seminar 1–2 July, Heriott-Wyatt University, Edinburgh. Scotland.

  • Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. In Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93–108.

  • Avis, J. (2000). Policing the subject: learning outcomes, managerialism and research in PCET. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(1), 38–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. Australia: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, L. (1996). Outcome-based education: a critique. The Curriculum Journal, 7(1), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, L. (1997). Assessing curriculum outcomes in Australian schools. Educational Review, 49(1), 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, J. (1995). Outcomes, Learning and the curriculum. Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and other qualifications. London: The Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. (2008). Secret destinations. In Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 303–308.

  • Capper, C. A., & Jamison, M. T. (1993). Outcome-based education reexamined: from structural functionalism to poststructuralism. Educational Policy, 7(4), 427–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). The outcomes question in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condliffe Langemann, E. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of educational research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, Accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A. (2002). Writing learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. Retrieved September 2008 from http://www.arts.ac.uk/docks/cltad_learningoutcomes.pdf.

  • Eisner, E. W. (1979). The education imagination. On the design and evaluation of school programs. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc New York, Collier Macmillan Publishers London.

  • Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. Routledge: World Library of Educationalists Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewell, P. (2005). Applying learning outcomes to higher education: An overview. Paper prepared for the Hong Kong University Grants Committee. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

  • Furman, G. C. (1994). Outcomes-based education and accountability. Education and Urban Society, 26(4), 417–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1974). Learning for instruction. Illinois: The Dryden Press Hinsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research an introduction. USA: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, R. M. (2002). Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: is there a difference? Medical Teacher, 24(2), 151–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harden, R. M., Crosby, J. R., & Davis, M. H. (1999). AMEE Guide No 14. Outcome-based education. Part 1—An introduction to outcome-based education. Medical Teacher, 21(1), 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Educational outcomes, modern and postmodern interpretations: response to Smyth and Dow. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, S., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, S., & Smith, P. (2008). Learning outcomes: a conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, B., & Brown, S. (2005). Grasping the TLRP nettle: preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes. Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, G. (1991). Outcomes. NVQs and the emerging model of education and training. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellaghan, T., & Greaney, V. (2001). Using assessment to improve the quality of education. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. A., & Evans, K. M. (1991). Can we achieve outcome-based education? Educational Leadership, 49(2), 73–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacBeath, J., & Moos, L. (2009). First editorial. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malan, STP (2000) The “new paradigm” of outcomes-based education in perspective. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Science, 28.

  • Melton, R. (1996). Learning outcomes for higher education: some key issues. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(4), 409–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (2005). Linking Levels, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria. Paper presented at the Bologna meeting in Bergen, Norway, in 2005. http://www.bolognabergen2005.no/EN/Bol_sem/Seminars/040701-02Edinburgh/040701-02Linking_Levels_plus_ass_crit-Moon.pdf retrieved autumn 2008.

  • Morcke, A. M. G., Wickmann-Hansen, D., Guldbrandsen, N., & Eika, B. (2006). Complex perspectives on learning objectives: stakeholders’ beliefs about core objectives based on focus group interviews. Medical Education, 40, 675–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nusche, D. (2008). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: A comparative review of selected practices. OECD Education Working Paper No. 15. 29 February 2008, Directorate for Education.

  • Møller, J., Prøitz, T. S., & Aasen, P. (2009). Kunnskapsløftet—tung bør å bære? NIFU STEP report 42. Oslo.

  • Otter, S. (1992). Learning outcomes in higher education. A Development Project Report. UDACE, Department of Employment, London (England).

  • Rees, C. E. (2004). The problem with outcomes-based curricula in medical education:insights from educational theory. Medical Education, 38(6), 593–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smythe, J., & Dow, A. (1998). What’s wrong with outcomes? Spotter planes, action plans and steerage of the educational workplace. British Journal of Sociology of Education., 19(3), 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome based education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: the basis of authentic restructuring and reform. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stensaker, B. (2003). Trance, transparency and transformation. The impact of external quality monitoring in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 9, 151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stensaker, B., Brandt, E., & Solum, N. H. (2008). Changing systems of external examination. Quality Asurance in Education, 16(3), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, A. O., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, T. C. (2002). Outcomes assessment in sociology: prevalence and impact. Teaching Sociology, 30(4), 403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. D., Miles, C. L., Baker, R. L., & Schoenberger, R. L. (2000). Learning outcomes for the 21st century: Report of a community college study. Laguna Hills: League for innovation in the community colleges.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Jorunn Møller, Nicoline Frølich and Bjørn Stensaker for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NIFU STEP, Werglandsvei 7, 0167, Oslo, Norway

    Tine S. Prøitz

Authors
  1. Tine S. Prøitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tine S. Prøitz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prøitz, T.S. Learning outcomes: What are they? Who defines them? When and where are they defined?. Educ Asse Eval Acc 22, 119–137 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9097-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9097-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation