Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
Published in: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 3/2016

29-06-2016

Why use learning outcomes in higher education? Exploring the grounds for academic resistance and reclaiming the value of unexpected learning

Authors: Anton Havnes, Tine Sophie Prøitz

Published in: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability | Issue 3/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Learning outcomes are now mandated in higher education courses across Europe. However, their impact on teaching and student learning is both uncertain and an issue for debate. In this paper, we explore (1) what is meant by learning outcomes in diverse contexts and (2) whether policy and practice governing learning outcomes accord with developments in learning theories, especially regarding sociocultural approaches that have drawn significant interest since the 1990s (Engeström 1987; Lave and Wenger 1991). Shepard’s (Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14, 2000) publication is particularly salient to our examination due to her identification of an emerging paradigm to assist in the understanding of the relationships among teaching, learning and assessment. Employing recent work on conceptualisations of learning outcomes and a four-quadrant taxonomy (Prøitz in Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 119–137, 2010, 2014), we discuss relevant learning theory approaches. This article is a conceptual investigation exploring the grounds for the assumption that learning can be predefined in terms of (expected) outcomes. Specifically, we discuss this assumption from the perspective of recent developments in learning theories. We argue that introducing learning outcomes predominantly for policy and management purposes may actually weaken the learning outcomes’ potential to direct teaching and learning and to improve the quality of both.
previous article Assessment in education—from early childhood to higher education
next article Assessing self-regulated learning in higher education: a systematic literature review of self-report instruments

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.CrossRef
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baume, D. (2009). Writing and using good learning outcomes. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement. London: Paradigm Publishers.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.CrossRef
Birenbaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., Ridgeway, J., Wiesemes, R., & Nickmans, G. (2006). A learning integrated assessment system. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 61–67.CrossRef
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–75.CrossRef
Black, & Wiliam. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRef
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Brady, L. (1996). Outcome-based education: a critique. Curriculum Journal, 7(1), 5–16.CrossRef
Burke, J. (1995). Outcomes, learning and the curriculum. Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and other qualifications. London: The Falmer.
Caspersen, J., & Frølich, N. (2015). Managing learning outcomes. Leadership practices and old modes of new governance in higher education. In E. Reale & E. Primeri (Eds.), Universities in transition. Shifting institutional and organizational boundaries (pp. 187–202). Rotterdam: Sense.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, V. Finsia, C. A. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygostky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine. New York: Basic Books.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The education imagination. On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: the selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. London: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
European Commission. (2013). Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions (High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education). Report to the European Commission, June 2013.
European University Association. (2006). EUA Bologna handbook: making Bologna work. In E. Froment (Ed.). Raabe.
Ewell, P. (2005). Applying learning outcomes to higher education: an overview. Paper prepared for the Hong Kong University Grants Committee. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Furman, G. C. (1994). Outcomes-based education and accountability. Education and Urban Society, 26(4), 417–437.CrossRef
Gagné, R. M. (1974). Learning for instruction. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: the influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRef
Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes. American Psychologist, 18, 519–521.CrossRef
Gosling, D. (2001). Lost opportunity: what a credit framework would have added to the national qualification framework. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(3), 270–284.CrossRef
Gosling, D., & Moon, J. (2002). How to use learning outcomes and assessment criteria. London: SEEC.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.
Handal, G., Lycke, K. H., Mårensson, K., Roxå, T., Skodvin, A., & Solbrekke, T. D. (2014). The role of academic developers in transforming Bologna regulations to a national and institutional context. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(1), 12–25.CrossRef
Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Educational outcomes, modern and postmodern interpretations: response to Smyth and Dow. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 27–42.CrossRef
Havnes, A. (2008). Peer mediation beyond the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 193–204.CrossRef
Havnes, A. (2013). Assessment in higher education—a CHAT perspective. In G. Wells & A. Edwards (Eds.), Pedagogy in higher education: a cultural historical analysis (pp. 84–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hussey, S., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368.CrossRef
Hussey, S., & Smith, P. (2008). Learning outcomes. A conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 107–115.CrossRef
James, B., & Brown, S. (2005). Grasping the TLRP nettle: preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes. Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 7–30.CrossRef
Jessup, G. (1995). Outcome based qualifications and the implications for learning. In J. H. Burke (Ed.), Outcomes, learning and the curriculum—implications for NVQs, GNVQs and other qualifications (pp. 33–54). London: Taylor & Francis.
Kennedy, D., Hyland, Á., & Ryan, N. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes: a practical guide. Cork: University College Cork.
King, J. A., & Evans, K. M. (1991). Can we achieve outcome-based education? Educational Leadership, 49(2), 73–75.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lassnigg, L. (2012). ‘Lost in translation’: learning outcomes and the governance of education. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 299–330.CrossRef
Mager, R. F. (1975). Preparing objectives for instruction. Belmont: Fearon.
Marton, F., Hounsell, S., & Entwistle, N. (1984). The experience of learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Melton, R. (1996). Learning outcomes for higher education: some key issues. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(4), 409–425.CrossRef
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRef
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: a third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
Prøitz, T. S. (2010). Learning outcomes—what are they? Who defines them? When and where are they defined? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 119–137.CrossRef
Prøitz, T. S. (2014). Conceptualisations of learning outcomes—an explorative study of policymakers, teachers and scholars. PhD thesis, Series of dissertations submitted to the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, No. 194.
Purser, L. (2003). Report on Council of Europe seminar on recognition issues in the Bologna Process, Lisbon, April 2002. In S. Bergan (Ed.), Recognition issues in the Bologna Process (pp. 23–30). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Ramsden, P. (1992/2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: new tools for educational reform. In B. Gifford & M. C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing Assessments: alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.CrossRef
Smythe, J., & Dow, A. (1998). What’s wrong with outcomes? Spotter planes, action plans and steerage of the educational workplace. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(3), 291–302.CrossRef
Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. New York: Knoph.
Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: the basis of authentic restructuring and reform. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 4–8.
Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education. Critical issues and answers. Arlington: American Association of School Administrators.
Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67–72.
Stensaker, B. (2008). Endringsarbeid i høyere utdanning: nye konfliktlinjer og nye muligheter [Working towards change in higher education: new lines of conflict and new possibilities]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 6, 417–426.
Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 281–294.CrossRef
Tulviste, P., & Wertsch, J. V. (1994). Official and unofficial histories: the case of Estonia. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4(4), 311–329.CrossRef
Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar (Eds. and trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, M. F. D. (2003). National qualification frameworks as a global phenomenon: a comparative perspective. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 223–237.CrossRef
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Metadata
Title
Why use learning outcomes in higher education? Exploring the grounds for academic resistance and reclaiming the value of unexpected learning
Authors
Anton Havnes
Tine Sophie Prøitz
Publication date
29-06-2016
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1874-8597
Electronic ISSN: 1874-8600
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9243-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 3/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Towards a framework for the validation of early childhood assessment systems

OriginalPaper

Teacher assessment literacy: a review of international standards and measures

EditorialNotes

Assessment in education—from early childhood to higher education

ReviewPaper

Assessing self-regulated learning in higher education: a systematic literature review of self-report instruments