Why use learning outcomes in higher education? Exploring the grounds for academic resistance and reclaiming the value of unexpected learning

Article

Abstract

Learning outcomes are now mandated in higher education courses across Europe. However, their impact on teaching and student learning is both uncertain and an issue for debate. In this paper, we explore (1) what is meant by learning outcomes in diverse contexts and (2) whether policy and practice governing learning outcomes accord with developments in learning theories, especially regarding sociocultural approaches that have drawn significant interest since the 1990s (Engeström 1987; Lave and Wenger 1991). Shepard’s (Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14, 2000) publication is particularly salient to our examination due to her identification of an emerging paradigm to assist in the understanding of the relationships among teaching, learning and assessment. Employing recent work on conceptualisations of learning outcomes and a four-quadrant taxonomy (Prøitz in Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 119–137, 2010, 2014), we discuss relevant learning theory approaches. This article is a conceptual investigation exploring the grounds for the assumption that learning can be predefined in terms of (expected) outcomes. Specifically, we discuss this assumption from the perspective of recent developments in learning theories. We argue that introducing learning outcomes predominantly for policy and management purposes may actually weaken the learning outcomes’ potential to direct teaching and learning and to improve the quality of both.

Keywords

Learning outcomes Learning theory Qualification frameworks Assessment Curriculum alignment 

References

  1. Allais, S. (2012). Claims vs. practicalities: lessons about using learning outcomes. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 331–354. doi:10.1080/13639080.2012.687570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93–108. doi:10.1080/03075079612331381487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baume, D. (2009). Writing and using good learning outcomes. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  6. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement. London: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birenbaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., Ridgeway, J., Wiesemes, R., & Nickmans, G. (2006). A learning integrated assessment system. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, & Wiliam. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  12. Brady, L. (1996). Outcome-based education: a critique. Curriculum Journal, 7(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke, J. (1995). Outcomes, learning and the curriculum. Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and other qualifications. London: The Falmer.Google Scholar
  14. Caspersen, J., & Frølich, N. (2015). Managing learning outcomes. Leadership practices and old modes of new governance in higher education. In E. Reale & E. Primeri (Eds.), Universities in transition. Shifting institutional and organizational boundaries (pp. 187–202). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  15. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, V. Finsia, C. A. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygostky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Declaration, B. (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education. European Union, Brussels, available at: www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/bologna_declaration.pdf.
  17. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The education imagination. On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: the selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2013). Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions (High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education). Report to the European Commission, June 2013.Google Scholar
  22. European University Association. (2006). EUA Bologna handbook: making Bologna work. In E. Froment (Ed.). Raabe.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Furman, G. C. (1994). Outcomes-based education and accountability. Education and Urban Society, 26(4), 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gagné, R. M. (1974). Learning for instruction. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: the influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes. American Psychologist, 18, 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gosling, D. (2001). Lost opportunity: what a credit framework would have added to the national qualification framework. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(3), 270–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gosling, D., & Moon, J. (2002). How to use learning outcomes and assessment criteria. London: SEEC.Google Scholar
  32. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Handal, G., Lycke, K. H., Mårensson, K., Roxå, T., Skodvin, A., & Solbrekke, T. D. (2014). The role of academic developers in transforming Bologna regulations to a national and institutional context. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(1), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Havnes, A. (2008). Peer mediation beyond the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Havnes, A. (2013). Assessment in higher education—a CHAT perspective. In G. Wells & A. Edwards (Eds.), Pedagogy in higher education: a cultural historical analysis (pp. 84–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hussey, S., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hussey, S., & Smith, P. (2008). Learning outcomes. A conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jessup, G. (1995). Outcome based qualifications and the implications for learning. In J. H. Burke (Ed.), Outcomes, learning and the curriculum—implications for NVQs, GNVQs and other qualifications (pp. 33–54). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  41. Kennedy, D., Hyland, Á., & Ryan, N. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes: a practical guide. Cork: University College Cork.Google Scholar
  42. Killen, R. (2000). Outcomes-based education: principles and possibilities (unpublished manuscript). University of Newcastle. http://drjj.uitm.edu.my.
  43. King, J. A., & Evans, K. M. (1991). Can we achieve outcome-based education? Educational Leadership, 49(2), 73–75.Google Scholar
  44. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lassnigg, L. (2012). ‘Lost in translation’: learning outcomes and the governance of education. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 299–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mager, R. F. (1975). Preparing objectives for instruction. Belmont: Fearon.Google Scholar
  47. Marton, F., Hounsell, S., & Entwistle, N. (1984). The experience of learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. Melton, R. (1996). Learning outcomes for higher education: some key issues. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(4), 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: a third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Prøitz, T. S. (2010). Learning outcomes—what are they? Who defines them? When and where are they defined? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prøitz, T. S. (2014). Conceptualisations of learning outcomes—an explorative study of policymakers, teachers and scholars. PhD thesis, Series of dissertations submitted to the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, No. 194.Google Scholar
  54. Prøitz, T. S. (2015). Learning outcomes as a key concept in policy documents throughout policy changes. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(3), 275–296. doi:10.1080/00313831.2014.904418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Purser, L. (2003). Report on Council of Europe seminar on recognition issues in the Bologna Process, Lisbon, April 2002. In S. Bergan (Ed.), Recognition issues in the Bologna Process (pp. 23–30). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Ramsden, P. (1992/2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: new tools for educational reform. In B. Gifford & M. C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing Assessments: alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  58. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. New York: Knoph.Google Scholar
  61. Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: the basis of authentic restructuring and reform. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 4–8.Google Scholar
  62. Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education. Critical issues and answers. Arlington: American Association of School Administrators.Google Scholar
  63. Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67–72.Google Scholar
  64. Stensaker, B. (2008). Endringsarbeid i høyere utdanning: nye konfliktlinjer og nye muligheter [Working towards change in higher education: new lines of conflict and new possibilities]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 6, 417–426.Google Scholar
  65. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tulviste, P., & Wertsch, J. V. (1994). Official and unofficial histories: the case of Estonia. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4(4), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar (Eds. and trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Young, M. F. D. (2003). National qualification frameworks as a global phenomenon: a comparative perspective. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Young, M., & Allais, S. (2011). The shift to outcomes based frameworks. Key problems from a critical perspective. Austrian Open Access Journal of Adult Education, 14, 03/1–03/10. http://erwachsenenbildung.at/magazin/11-14/meb11-14.pdf.Google Scholar
  73. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of ProfessionsOslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOsloNorway
  2. 2.University College of Southeast NorwayBorreNorway
  3. 3.NIFU Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and EducationOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations