Session Information
23 SES 10 B, Education Policy and Curriculum Formation
Paper Session
Contribution
The topic of this paper is how adoption of a popular educational concept developed for a specific context look like when adopted into a different context. The concept in question is learning outcomes. Does meaning travel across context independent of their origin and how stable is contextual conditions when popular concepts travel? In concrete; What happens when the concept of learning outcomes meets the realities of national policy in Norwegian documents for policy development? How is the concept given meaning and the adoption justified for in relation to national policy development?
The concept has for a long time been in use and is heavily discussed within education in Anglo-Saxon countries (Furman 1994, Burke 1995, Allan 1996, Smyth & Dow 1998, Cochrane-Smith 2000, Hargreaves & Moore 2000, Hussey & Smith 2003, 2008, James & Brown 2005, Prøitz 2010). It has for years supported the idea of a necessary change of focus from teaching to student learning. Its popularity as a medium for emphasizing anticipated learning after completion of courses or modules (Ewell 2005) can be seen in countries` embracement of outcomes in curriculum development and the international society’s efforts to develop qualifications frameworks.
However even though the same concept are in use and the objective for focusing on outcomes seem to be the same (more and better learning for all) the debate indicates different issues being addressed (Prøitz 2010). Adam (2004) points out that although there seem to be a common understanding of learning outcomes, differences between countries in practical application appear. Hargreaves and Moore (2000) believe that more evidence on outcomes in various contexts is needed if a meta-analysis of outcomes and their effects in different policy contexts is to be developed. MacBeath and Moos (2009) assert that values and purposes of outcomes have been insufficiently questioned and analysed. Others discuss whether adoption of the concept in educational systems requires certain conditions and traditions of mastery learning, objective-based schooling and/or behaviorist orientations (Brady 1996, Allan 1996, Burke 1995).
As such it is interesting to examine learning outcomes when adopted into a different context than it initially was developed for. The Norwegian educational system was long dominated by the theories of John Dewey and the progressive movement (Telhaug et al. 2006). In Norway the concept of learning outcomes has been given a more prominent place in the ruling discourse of educational policy during the past 10 years. Hence, Norway represents an interesting example of the adoption of a concept strongly inspired by an Anglo-Saxon approach within an educational system with long traditions of process-oriented learning.
The theoretical framework of the study is based on a social constructivist standpoint. Learning outcomes as expressed in different contexts can be said to have a constitutive role when it comes to what is considered as real and true about the concept (Searle 1995). Based on this an analytical framework for identification of expressed definitions and purposes for the adoption of learning outcomes within educational systems has been developed.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Adam, S. (2004) Using learning outcomes. A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing “learning outcomes” at the local, national and international levels. UK Bologna seminar 1–2 July, Heriott-Wyatt University, Edinburgh. Scotland. Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93–108. Brady, L. (1996). Outcome-based education: a critique. The Curriculum Journal, 7(1), 5–16 Burke, J. (1995). Outcomes, Learning and the curriculum. Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and other qualifications. London: The Falmer. Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). The outcomes question in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 527–546 Furman, G. C. (1994). Outcomes-based education and accountability. Education and Urban Society, 26 (4), 417–437. 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. 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. MacBeath, J., & Moos, L. (2009). First editorial. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 1–4. Proitz, T. S. (2010) Learning outcomes - What are they? Who defines them? When and where are they defined? Educational assessment, evaluation and accountability Vol. 22, No 2, 119-137 Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free. 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 Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, A. O., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.