‘Evidence’ About ‘Outcome Orientation’: Austrian Experience with European Policies

  • Lorenz LassniggEmail author
Part of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (TVET, volume 18)


This chapter analyses the development of ‘evidence-based policy and practice’ in Austria, taking the policy of ‘outcome orientation’ and the development of a national qualifications framework as its focus. The analysis explores these abstract and generic concepts by looking at a national case. A basic distinction is drawn between evidence-based policy and evidence-based practice, and a model of the research cycle is applied. It is shown that ‘learning outcomes’ do in fact play a minor role in the policies towards outcome orientation. Applying a full model of the research cycle to the use of research and development in education, we see policies being stuck in the very early stages of formulation and discussion of ideas and artefacts. The activities are situated very much at the policy level and do not reach education and training practice.


Learning Outcome Governance System Consultation Process Outcome Orientation Research Cycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bjørnåvold, J., & Coles, M. (2007/2008). Governing education and training; The case of qualifications frameworks.European Journal of Vocational Training, No. 42–43, 203–235.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, A. (2008). Limitations of levels, learning outcomes and qualifications as drivers towards a more knowledge based society.US-China Education Review, 5(1), 9–17.Google Scholar
  3. CEDEFOP. (2009a).Modernising vocational education and training. Fourth report on vocational education and training research in Europe: Synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  4. CEDEFOP. (2009b).The shift to learning outcomes. Policies and practices in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  5. Cendon, E., et al. (Eds.). (2008).Implementing competence orientation and learning outcomes in higher education – Processes and practices in five countries. Krems: Donau Universität.Google Scholar
  6. Coles, M., & Werquin, P. (2009). The role of national qualifications systems in helping to modernise vocational education and training systems. In CEDEFOP (Ed.),Modernising vocational education and training. Fourth report on vocational education and training research in Europe: Background report (Vol. 3, pp. 141–178). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  7. EC-European Commission. (2007).Towards more knowledge-based policy and practice in education and training. Commission Staff Working Document, 28.08.2007, SEC(2007) 1098, Brussels. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from
  8. Eder, F. (Ed.). (2002).Qualitätssicherung und Qualitätsentwicklung im österreichischen Schulwesen. Wien: Studienverlag.Google Scholar
  9. Flay, B., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination.Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glatter, R. (2002). Governance, autonomy and accountability in education. In M. Preedy, C. Wise, & R. Glatter (Eds.),Strategic leadership and educational improvement. Leading and managing for effective education (pp. 44–59). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004).Combining methods in educational and social research. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grollmann, P., Spöttl, G., & Rauner, F. (Eds.). (2006).Europäisierung Beruflicher Bildung – eine Gestaltungsaufgabe. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Kehm, B. M., & Lanzendorf, U. (2007). The impacts of university management on academic work: Reform experiences in Austria and Germany.Management Revue, 18(2), 153–173.Google Scholar
  14. Kettl, D. F. (1998).Reinventing government. A fifth-year report card (CPM report 98-1). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  15. Lassnigg, L. (2009a). ‘Evidence’ about ‘outcome orientation’ – Austria in a comparative perspective. In L. Deitmer, L. Lassnigg, & S. Manning (Eds.), Proceedings of the ECER VETNET Conference 2009 (ECER’09), September 28–30, 2009, Vienna. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from!ecer09.htm.
  16. Lassnigg, L. (2009b). Policy learning and outcome orientation in Austrian VET – Theoretical and empirical explorations. In F. K. Oser et al. (Eds.),VET boost: Towards a theory of professional competencies (pp. 385–408). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Lassnigg, L., & Mayer, K. (2001).Definition and selection of key competencies in Austria. Country report, BFS-OECD Project DeSeCo. IHS-Sociological Series 53, Vienna: IHS. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from
  18. Lassnigg, L., & Vogtenhuber, S. (2009).Von Lehrplänen zu Lernergebnissen: Ergebnisorientierte Beschreibung von Qualifikationen des formalen Bildungssystems in Österreich, in Markowitsch. In J. Markowitsch (Ed.),Der Nationale Qualifikationsrahmen in Österreich. Beiträge zur Entwicklung, J. op. cit. (pp. 71–96). Vienna: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Lassnigg, L., et al. (2006).European qualifications framework – EQF in the context of tertiary education. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.Google Scholar
  20. Markowitsch, J. (Ed.). (2009).Der Nationale Qualifikationsrahmen in Österreich. Beiträge zur Entwicklung, Studies in Lifelong Learning 3. Wien: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Markowitsch, J., Schlögl, P., Schneeberger, A. (2006). Europäischer und nationaler Qualifikationsrahmen. Stellungnahmen zum Arbeitsdokument der Europäischen Kommission sowie erste Befunde für Österreich. Abschlussbericht, Wien.Google Scholar
  22. OECD. (2007).Evidence in education. Linking research and policy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  23. Oelkers, J., & Reusser, K. (2008).Qualität entwickeln – Standards sichern – mit Differenz umgehen (Bd. 27). Bonn/Berlin: BMBF Bildungsforschung.Google Scholar
  24. Pechar, H. (2004). The emergence of the accreditation model 1990-1994. In J. Pratt (Ed.),The ‘accreditation model’. Policy transfer in higher education in Austria and Britain (pp. 53–72). Oxford: Symposium.Google Scholar
  25. Posch, P., & Altrichter, H. (1992).Schulautonomie in Österreich. Bildungsforschung des BM für Unterricht und Kunst (Bd. 1). Wien: BMUK.Google Scholar
  26. Schneeberger, A., Schlögl, P., Neubauer, B. (2009). Zur Anerkennung von nicht-formalem und informellem Lernen im Nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen, in Markowitsch, J. op. cit. (pp. 111–132).Google Scholar
  27. Timischl, W. (2006). QIBB – The Austrian VET initiative to assure and further develop quality in the school-based education system. In BMBWK (Ed.) VET quality initiative (pp. 25–47). Vienna: BMBWK.Google Scholar
  28. Werquin, P. (2007). Moving mountains: Will qualifications systems promote lifelong learning?European Journal of Education, 42(4), 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young, M. (2007). Qualifications frameworks: Some conceptual issues.European Journal of Education, 42(4), 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Research group equi-employment-qualification-innovationInstitut für Höhere Studien - Institute for Advanced StudiesViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations