Higher Education Learning Outcomes and their Ambiguous Relationship to Disciplines and Professions

Abstract

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 |

Developing employability in engineering education: a systematic review of the literature

“…x-axis represents the social relations, in this case, the professional skills, and the y-axis represents the objective (epistemic relations) to engineering knowledge, as in Figure 1. of the disciplinary core of an engineering programme is essential when trying to extend engineering knowledge with elements taken from another field, such as Communication, Management, or Ethics (White and Irons 2009). Understanding the disciplinary base of employability (usually grounded in humanities or social sciences) is equally important (Clement and Murugavel 2015).…”

Shadows over accreditation in higher education: some quantitative evidence

“…instruments that typically try to get people to do things they might not do otherwise (Schneider & Ingram 1990). Recent studies show how learning outcomes (which were employed in compliance with the AVA model) not only encounter various levels of resistance but also assume meanings and functions that vary across the disciplinary areas where they are employed (Bleiklie et al 2017;Michelsen et al 2017).…”

Shaping Perceptions of a Policy Instrument: The Political–Administrative Formation of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education in Norway and England

“…They suggest academic leaders interpret LOs in diverse ways, as potential solutions to diverse challenges faced by their field or area, but that they are used across cases as a 'managerial symbol' offering new opportunities to intervene and negotiate about teaching quality. Michelsen et al (2017) compare how engineering, humanities, and medical programmes in Norway have responded to LOs, arguing these show LOs shaped by local conditions and the professional and disciplinary groups that led to them being understood as enacting slightly distinct functions in line with specific needs. Another HELO publication, including the comparative English-cases, focused on LOs as management tools (Bleiklie, Frølich, Sweetman & Henkel, 2017) concluding their most developed role as management tools thus far is to provide more concrete administrative information, and that the changes they have brought have had a greater impact on the Norwegian cases than the English ones.…”