This article investigates the form of European universities to determine the extent to which they resemble the characteristics of complete organizations and whether the forms are associated with modernization policy pressure, national institutional frames and organizational characteristics. An original data set of twenty-six universities from eight countries was used. Specialist universities have a stronger identity, whereas the level of hierarchy and rationality is clearly associated with the intensity of modernization policies. At the same time, evidence suggests limitations for universities to become complete, as mechanisms allowing the development of some dimensions seemingly constrain the capability to develop others.
This article highlights the significance of professional and disciplinary spaces in the shaping of Learning Outcomes (Los) in higher education. It is based on empirical studies of three programmes (engineering, the humanities and medicine) at two Norwegian universities. The results demonstrate both similarities and differences in the dynamics of learning outcomes formation. In the humanities and engineering they were translated into learning objectives, closing in on course rationalisation and portfolio coherence. Whilst the focus in the humanities remained internal in orientation, in engineering, internal processes of implementation merged with quality assurance and external development processes mediated by the engineering profession. In medicine, the introduction and implementation of learning outcomes were mediated by prior experiences with problem-based learning practices. During that process, learning outcomes became oriented towards professional identity and conformity to international quality standards. In that sense, learning outcomes could function as regulatory mechanisms sheltering medical education from outside interference rather than as a tool for structuring learning. Within the framework of learning outcomes, professional compliance with external scrutiny through the display of standards has become more important, but also more linked to the university as an organisational actor. K E Y W O R D S disciplines ambiguity, higher education, learning outcomes, norway, professions | I N T R O D U C T I O NIn this article, we highlight the significance of professional and disciplinary spaces and the interaction of institutional and professional/disciplinary logics in the interpretation and shaping of learning outcomes (LOs). We ask: How are learning outcomes shaped in professional and disciplinary study programmes? As the Norwegian higher education 56 |
This thesis explores learning outcomes (LOs) as a prominent policy and feature of European higher education (HE) reforms. Widely used to describe the learning expected at different levels of education, LO's emerging role in degree-level practices is explored via interviews with teachers, leaders, and students, from eight degree-programme cases at English and Norwegian universities. These evidence LOs being interpreted and used in planning, teaching, learning and management. The four publications included in this thesis provide detailed accounts of LO practices on various levels, in applications spanning course development, teaching reform and quality assurance. LOs are shown to influence practice, disputing views of them as a purely symbolic or formal policy. However, their application and influence are complex and ambiguous. They can support clear, constructive approaches to planning and teaching, but are also perceived as a problematic, potentially counter-productive way to communicate about learning. Their role in management is still emerging, but they appear to create new opportunities for oversight and steering of teaching, and their growing role in quality assurance seems to create pressure for the development of more specific, measurable LOs. The analysis highlights the challenge of reconciling flexible, open 'process' forms of LOs developed for teaching with concrete, measurement-focused 'product' LOs needed for oversight or comparison applications. The enactment process presented here is incompatible with simple 'top down' or 'bottom up' perspectives on policy formation, evidencing local adaptation and variety, and examples of highly standardised or rule-based practices. An argument is developed that explaining these findings requires a deliberate engagement with the mess and multiplicity which characterise LOs. A set of metaphors are developed to offer an alternative view of LOs as policy nets, knots and tangles. These convey multiplicity and complexity, while offering new ways to look at relationships between divergent LO forms and practices, explanations for the enactment processes identified, and a way to highlight the key choices HE actors and policy makers confront as they continue to enact LOs in universities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.