Learning outcomes between learner centredness and institutionalisation of qualification frameworks

Abstract

This article investigates what is claimed to be a shift towards national and European education systems based on Learning Outcomes (LO). We propose to delineate LO into three instruments (pedagogical, policy and organisational). When LO are related to a pedagogical debate, they can easily be positioned to constructivist learning theories in which the centredness of the learner is brought to the fore. This perspective is often emphasised by EU institutions and agencies when outlining implications for education and training practices. At the same time, LO are inscribed in a package of policies playing out at a national and cross-national level whose success lies in their political and organisational ramification. Of particular importance is how these policies change rules and procedures of educational institutions, notably curricula and the awarding of qualifications. Within this picture of learner centredness and institutionalisation, LO in the existing literature are analysed as pedagogical and policy instruments. This article proposes to add a third perspective, that of considering LO as an organisational instrument. This implies studying the work organisation of educational institutions, as well as the bodies and agencies (‘quangos’) of importance for bringing about LO. Another aspect which the notion organisational instrument can shed light on is the continuing efforts to improve the performance of education systems by means of quality control and auditing procedures. The article concludes that policy-making for education and training will benefit from studies able to accurately determine the nature of the instruments deployed in the ongoing discourse on LO. Against this background, some implications for future studies and analyses in the field of education and training are drawn.

Discipline learning outcomes: Design resource and quality assurance mechanism

“…Faculty leaders valued the Science TLOs as a starting point for the construction of course learning outcomes in discipline-relevant language, an agreed reference list of outcomes, and shared standards across institutions and disciplinary communities. This supports international views of the value of disciplinary learning outcome statements (Sweetman, 2019;Ure, 2018).…”

A Framework For Defining Learning Outcomes That Support Relevant Higher Education

“…The most frequently quoted is the revised Bloom taxonomy for the cognitive domain (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), the Constructive alignment model (Biggs, 2003) / Backwards design -Understanding by design model (Wiggins et al, 2005), and the SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes) taxonomy of Biggs and Collis (2014). There is a clear need for what Ure (2019) named an 'organizational instrument' (Ure, 2019) that is commonly understood and consistently used in curriculum development as well as in guiding the teaching, learning and evaluation.…”