{"id":386,"date":"2014-10-15T12:14:53","date_gmt":"2014-10-15T12:14:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/?p=386"},"modified":"2025-02-26T13:23:59","modified_gmt":"2025-02-26T13:23:59","slug":"secondpaper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/2014\/10\/15\/secondpaper\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding and enacting learning outcomes: the academic’s perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Sun<\/a><\/p>\n

Our\u00a0second\u00a0‘Learning Outcomes Project’ paper has just been published in Studies in Higher Education<\/em>.\u00a0 It is called ‘Understanding and enacting learning outcomes: the academic’s perspective’ <\/a>and\u00a0follows on from our previously published paper ‘Learning about learning outcomes: the student perspective’<\/a>.\u00a0 Both papers are\u00a0based on research we conducted with students and academic staff at the University of Leicester concerning their perceptions about, and uses of, learning outcomes.<\/p>\n

There are\u00a0relatively few\u00a0research papers concerning\u00a0student and academic staff\u00a0use of, and engagement with, learning outcomes – hence, we are pleased that these papers are helping to\u00a0build the knowledge-base around this very under-researched area.<\/p>\n

Some snippets are\u00a0given below from our most recently published paper that I hope will whet your appetite to read it in full:<\/p>\n

In 2007, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) conducted an audit of 70 institutions in England and found varied engagement with learning outcomes by academics in the same institutions. The report stated: \u2018It is apparent that not all staff embraced the learning outcomes approach with equal enthusiasm\u2019 (6).<\/span> <\/strong>The QAA further reported that \u2018some institutions have found more difficulty than others in introducing [learning outcomes] as a keystone of programme and module\/unit design\u2019 (2007, 13). No further review or audit appears to have been conducted concerning institutional or staff adoption and use of learning outcomes. Indeed, despite copious literature and guidance about how to write learning outcomes, there is very little evidence about how both academic staff and students actually make use of them<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>. Consequently, it is relatively unknown<\/span> <\/strong>whether the unequal enthusiasm observed in staff by the QAA (2007) is still evident within the academic community. Further, it is unclear<\/span> <\/strong>if differences in enthusiasm and engagement are apparent across disciplines within the same institutions. (Page 2)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"BS\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Eighty-four per cent of Biological Sciences questionnaire respondents considered that learning outcomes are useful learning aids for students<\/strong> <\/span>(Table 2). This view was further illuminated by two of the interviewees within this School. BS2 commented that learning outcomes \u2018let the students know precisely what it is we expect them to learn from the teaching event that we prepare for them\u2019. Similarly, BS3 stated that learning outcomes give students \u2018more guidance on where they should be directing their efforts<\/span> <\/strong>with their learning\u2019 by acting, in effect, as an extra syllabus to guide primarily \u2018the background reading they do in addition to the lecture\u2019. In complete disagreement with this view, BS1 considered learning outcomes to be \u2018almost worthless\u2019<\/span><\/strong>. (Page 7)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"Eng\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

The interviews offered illumination of some English academics\u2019 views concerning the process of creating learning outcomes. Eng2 and Eng3 in particular viewed English as a subject that could not \u2018enact\u2019<\/span> <\/strong>learning outcomes in any \u2018absolutely quantifiable and homogenous\u2019<\/span> <\/strong>(Eng2) way. Instead, both affirmed that \u2018with this subject part of what you want students to do is to veer away from the syllabus\u2019 (Eng2) and develop independence to direct and extend their further reading and study. As such, they were concerned to write their learning outcomes<\/span> <\/strong>in a way that students retain flexibility and freedom<\/span> <\/strong>to cultivate their particular \u2018pleasure of the subject\u2019<\/span> <\/strong>(Eng2). (Page 11)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"Med\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Medical questionnaire respondents reported very similar views to those in Biological Sciences concerning the priority for the use of learning outcomes in higher education. Whilst half the sample wanted learning outcomes to continue being used as they are now, nearly a third reported that they are over-prioritised<\/span><\/strong>. Only around a fifth indicated that learning outcomes should be given higher priority (Figure 1). Another similarity to the Biological Sciences sample occurred in the interview data concerning the priority of learning outcomes within the current developing framework of higher education. Mirroring BS2\u2019s comments regarding learning outcomes acting as a \u2018safety net\u2019 for tutors<\/span> <\/strong>against complaining consumer-type students, Md1 suggested that following the tuition fee rise in 2012, learning outcomes may become part of \u2018a big legal issue\u2019 for universities<\/span><\/strong>. (Page 13)<\/p>\n

…..<\/p>\n

our findings also suggest that there is a middle ground occupied by academic staff<\/span> <\/strong>between the extremes of aligning with learning outcomes from a student-centred learning or bureaucratic accountability perspective. Consequently, it is perhaps now time<\/strong> to move beyond the polarised arguments <\/strong><\/span>about learning outcomes that have dominated within the literature. Specifically, the interview data indicated that accountability may become more significant in some understandings about learning outcomes as a consumerist framework of higher education<\/span><\/strong> further develops in the face of higher fees. (Page 17)<\/em><\/p>\n

(Kerry Dobbins, Sara Brooks, Jon J.A. Scott, Mark Rawlinson & Robert I. Norman (2014): Understanding and enacting learning outcomes: the academic’s perspective, Studies in <\/em>Higher Education<\/em>, DOI: 10.1080\/03075079.2014.966668)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Be sure to read the full paper <\/a>to put these snippets into the wider context of our research and findings.\u00a0 As always, we would be very pleased to hear any thoughts or comments you may have based on the research presented and\/or conclusions drawn in the paper.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Our\u00a0second\u00a0‘Learning Outcomes Project’ paper has just been published in Studies in Higher Education.\u00a0 It is called ‘Understanding and enacting learning outcomes: the academic’s perspective’ and\u00a0follows on from our previously published paper ‘Learning about learning outcomes: the student perspective’.\u00a0 Both papers are\u00a0based on research we conducted with students and academic staff at the University of Leicester […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":147,"featured_media":399,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4,2],"tags":[10,26],"class_list":["post-386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-losinhe","category-researchinglos","category-uolproject","tag-researchreflection","tag-tutor-experience"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/147"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=386"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":400,"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386\/revisions\/400"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/399"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}