Learning outcomes in professional contexts in higher education

Abstract

With the policy of developing a, transparent and competitive European higher education sector, learning outcomes (LOs) are attributed a foundation stone role in policy and curriculum development. A premise for their implementation is that they bear fundamental similarities across national, institutional or professional/disciplinary contexts. In contrast, detractors suggest that LOs cannot communicate precisely across programmes or national boundaries. With this as a backdrop, this article analyses how LOs are used to communicate what students are to learn and the extent to which their use drives standardisation. The analysis is based on a case study of how LOs are formulated in study programme documents in two professional education programmes in Norway and the UK. The findings indicate that LOs can be considered to drive standardisation through the same presentation using bullet points. The study also finds that LOs are framed in different ways in the two countries and within the different study programmes and in a web of interconnected documents. This 'local' structural use of LOs disrupts their 'foundation stone' role as a vehicle for standardisation and weakens the establishment of sameness across institutions and nations.

Helsepedagogikk i læreplaner – en didaktisk analyse

“…Senere års studier av høyere utdanningers program-og emneplaner har i stor grad handlet om laeringsutbyttebeskrivelser generelt og ikke om helsepedagogikk spesielt. For eksempel har man undersøkt bruken og forståelsen av selve laeringsutbyttebegrepet (Gynnild, 2017;Sørskår, 2015), sammenlignet laeringsutbyttebeskrivelser på ulike laereplannivåer (Prøitz, Havnes, Briggs, & Scott, 2017) samt undersøkt i hvilken grad laeringsutbyttebeskrivelser i emner og kurs influerer undervisning, vurdering og studentlaering (Caspersen, Frølich, & Muller, 2017;Sweetman, 2017). Vi etterlyser studier av helsepedagogikk i program-og emneplaner som ikke utelukkende undersøker oppfatninger, bruk og konsekvenser av laeringsutbyttebeskrivelser, men som i større grad trekker veksel på didaktiske relasjonsmodeller i analysen.…”

“…Selv om mestring og medvirkning tas opp i ramme-og programplan, vies temaene oppmerksomhet i 2 av 10 studieemner, altså nokså få. En komparativ studie av ramme-, program-, emne-og fagplaner i sykepleieutdanning og grunnskolelaererutdanningene i Norge og England (Prøitz et al, 2017) finner tilsvarende svake sammenhenger i de norske planene. I en NOKUT-evaluering (Sørskår, 2015) rapporterer flere institusjoner om at arbeidet med å utarbeide laeringsutbyttebeskrivelser har vaert uvant og at det har igangsatt prosesser med å tydeliggjøre sammenhengene mellom slike beskrivelser i studieemner og studieprogram.…”

Consistency in study programme planning and the complexity of curriculum logics

“…Research has also shown that the internal coherence in a course between learning activities, anticipated outcomes and assessment forms is crucial for the quality of student learning (Ashwin et al 2015;Biggs and Tang 2011;Meyers and Nulty 2009). In line with this contemporary ideas of curriculum planning emphasise the definitions of what students can do after completing a programme or course as a way to establish consistency in curriculum design (Ashwin et al 2015;Prøitz et al 2017;Young 2003;Young and Muller 2015).…”

“…Further, questions regarding learning outcomes and the concepts of consistency have also been raised. From a critical stance, it has been argued that too narrow and detailed learning outcomes may undermine the necessary flexibility to adjust activities to students' emerging needs, hence preventing unplanned but productive forms of engagement from being recognised (Allan 1996;Prøitz 2010;Prøitz et al 2017). In addition, the principles of alignment in curriculum design emphasise a linear way of thinking and practices of complexity reduction that may risk being oppressive to student learning (Gough 2013).…”

“…The aim of the current paper is to discuss issues of consistency I have encountered in studies on learning outcome-oriented study programmes 1 in higher education (Friedrich, Prøitz, and Stensaker 2016;Prøitz 2010;Prøitz et al 2017;Prøitz, Wittek, and de Lange 2020). In particular, the study is inspired by interview studies showing that the staff members in higher education express a magnitude of intentions for study programme change and that a multitude of interconnected aspects influence study programme design Prøitz, Wittek, and de Lange 2020).…”