DEVELOPING REALISTIC LEARNING OUTCOMES
Trevor Hussey & Patrick Smith
MALCOLM & ZUKAS (2001: 35)
"...the language of objectives, outcomes, competences and
empowerment of the learner has 'seduced' both policy makers and
practitioners in many areas of education."
EISNER (2000: 344)
"The vision of a uniformed army of young adolescents all marching to the same
drummer, towards the same objective, may be one that gladdens the hearts of
technocrats, but it is a vision that has little or nothing to do with those delicious
outcomes that constitute the surprises of educational experience."
THE STORY SO FAR…
Concern for realistic learning outcomes Dangers of disaggregation of curriculum This critique should be understood as…
THE TROUBLE WITH LEARNING OUTCOMES
Often not referred to Spurious clarity, explicitness &
objectivity Insensitive to different disciplines Restrictive – thresholds & emergent
outcomes
INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES (ILOs)
ILOs are formulated and directed by the teacher or others and refer to what students should be able to
demonstrate in terms of knowledge, skills and/or attitudes as a result of a
learning episode.
EMERGENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (ELOs)
ELOs emerge from what happens in classrooms between learners,
teachers and the curriculum. They cannot be pre-specified, though
some are more likely than others and some may be more desireable than
others.
THE ARTICULATED CURRICULUM
Intentions
JudgementsContent
Methods
CONTEXT
ILOs & ELOs
ILOs
ELOs
Contingent
Related
Incidental
PREDICTED/UNPREDICTED, DESIRED/UNDESIRED
Predicted
Unpredicted
Desired UndesiredA
B
C
D
TOWARDS MORE REALISTIC LEARNING OUTCOMES
More generous LOs Learners’ as well as teachers’ LOs Changing curricular arrangements Some outcomes cannot be measured
STUDENTS IN TRANSITION
“A significant change in a student’s life, self-concept and learning; a shift from one state
of understanding, development and maturity to
another.”
TRANSITIONS & THE UNDERGRADUATE CAREER
Pre-entry & Induction
Year One Year Two Year Three Post Graduation
DEPENDENCE
INTERDEPENDENCE
AUTONOMY
ORGANISING QUESTIONS How far will students’ needs,
responses & agendas be taken into account?
What balance is appropriate between instructional and expressive outcomes?
How will emergent learning outcomes be treated?
CONCLUSIONS ILOs represent approximate
intentions Engaged & motivated students
generate ELO’s Developing autonomous students
means negotiation of outcomes Others are exploring alternatives –
UCLan’s ‘personalised learning outcomes’
SOURCES & REFERENCESBruner J (1960). The process of education. Cambridge.
Harvard University Press.Eisner E (1975). Instructional and expressive objectives.
In Golby et al (1975) Curriculum Design. London. Croom Helm & Open University.
Eisner E (2000). Those who ignore the past… Journal of Curriculum Studies 32 (2) 343 – 357.
Gentle P (2001). Course cultures and learning organisations. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2 (1). 8 – 30.
SOURCES & REFERENCESJackson N, Wisdom J & Shaw M (2003). Guide to busy
academics: using learning outcomes to design courses and assess learning. York. LTSN Generic Centre.
Lampert M (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Harvard Educational Review 55 (2) 178-194.
Lewis & Tsuchida (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: how research lessons improve Japanese education. American Educator. Winter. 12 -17 & 50 – 52.
Malcolm J & Zukas M (2001). Bridging pedagogic gaps. Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (1). 33 – 42.
SOURCES & REFERENCESMcAlpine et al (1999). Building a metacognitive model
of reflection. Higher Education 37. 105-131.MacLellan E (2004). How convincing is alternative
assessment? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (3). 311 – 321.
Shavelson & Stern (1981). Research on teacher's thoughts, judgements, decisions and behaviours. Review of Educational Research, 51 (4).
CONTACT DETAILS
Professor Trevor HusseyEmail: [email protected]
Professor Patrick SmithEmail: [email protected]