This phase is about ensuring that your teaching practice is responsive to the context. This is about yourself as a teacher, understanding your students, the SU environment, the national HE context, South Africa and beyond.
1 of 6Outcomes are the end goals of the learning process. They are formulated to describe the result of student learning at the end of the learning opportunities. This is not about content but rather about the concepts and underlying principles of the field of study.
2 of 6Assessment is about how well your students achieve the intended learning outcomes. This is not about them reporting back what you have taught them, but rather about how well they demonstrate their understanding of the key concepts and underlying principles of their field of study.
3 of 6Learning is about what the students do, not about what you do as the teacher. Your role is to design learning opportunities that engage students and enable them to access disciplinary knowledge.
4 of 6This is where you consider whether you have achieved what you had set out to achieve with your module.
5 of 6 YOU ARE HERE Start journey 6 of 6An Introduction to Learning Outcomes
When we teach, we should have a clear idea of what we want our students to learn. More specifically, we should be able to stipulate, topic by topic, how well each topic needs to be understood.
For this reason, it is vital that we clearly articulate our outcomes in written statements that require students to demonstrate their understanding in practice instead of simply writing about it in formal exams.
In formulating curriculum outcomes, therefore, it is necessary to clarify what levels and types of knowledge our students should demonstrate in relation to which topics, and what performances of understanding would provide us with this information.
The writing of outcomes will inform what you teach
Learning Outcomes
The DeLTA cyclical diagram shows how outcomes fit into the process.
The formulation of outcomes will inform what you teach, how your students learn, and the kinds of assessments you design. The assessments will in turn give you good information about whether your students are achieving the learning outcomes.
The outcomes, the teaching and learning (T&L) activities and the assessment tasks should therefore be aligned, and this is referred to as Constructive Alignment.
In Constructive Alignment we start with the outcomes we intend students to learn, and then align our teaching and assessment to those outcomes.
Why do we have to formulate learning outcomes?
The traditional way of designing modules and programmes was to start from the content of the course. Teachers decided on the content that they intended to teach, planned how to teach this content and then assessed the content. This type of approach focussed on the teacher’s input and on assessment in terms of how well the students absorbed the material taught. Course descriptions referred mainly to the content of the course that would be covered in lectures. This approach to teaching has been referred to as a teacher-centred approach. Among the criticisms of this type of approach in the literature (Gosling and Moon, 2001) is that it can be difficult to identify precisely what the student has to be able to do in order to pass the module or programme.
The traditional way of designing modules and programmes
As lecturers we thus have to plan and design for student learning to take place. According to Brown and Race (2013) the lecturer’s knowledge is just information for the student. The question is then how does information become knowledge? Information only becomes knowledge when you “do” something with it. When you describe this “doing” that the students should do – it is done in terms of outcomes. We thus communicate this “doing” through formulating outcomes. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) call this ‘backward design’. Only when we are clear about what the students should achieve at the end, can we focus on the content, teaching methods and learning opportunities likely to allow students to achieve these outcomes.
Learning outcomes are a core component in any curriculum at both module and programme level. It is important for you and for the students as a guide to see where you are going.
The formulation of outcomes is fundamentally about the creation of knowledge
What are learning outcomes?
The formulation of outcomes is fundamentally about the creation of knowledge and it can be formulated for different purposes, for example, a class contact session, a module, a programme or a qualification. Outcomes would spell out what knowledge, skills
and attitudes/values/habits of mind we expect our students to have as a result of their learning.
When we plan a module or programme we identify certain “things” our students should learn and do. We need to tell them what these “things” are. We do this through formulating outcomes. Keep in mind these are learning outcomes and not learning activities.
Outcomes indicate what a lecturer sees as important
Spady (1994:8) argued that “what and whether students learn successfully is more important than when and how they learn something.” Describing a module or programme in terms of what students will do and what they will be learning therefore provides information up front that helps to guide and direct the lecturer’s planning and the students’ learning.
Outcomes indicate what a lecturer sees as important and it helps to determine what to assess during or at the end of the module or programme. Outcomes also allow students to determine whether they have learned what was intended for them to learn.
Upon graduation students will thus be able to answer the question “what can you do now that you have obtained your degree?” rather than “what did you do to obtain your degree?” (Purser, 2003).
The background and international influence to create and defining learning outcomes.
Background for Learning Outcomes
South Africa (SA) has been influenced by international shifts towards OBE (outcomes-based education), such as the Bologna declaration in Europe. In Higher Education, the shift towards OBE is regulated by bodies such as the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC), to whom we are accountable for the accreditation of qualifications. They also quality assure and accredit the qualifications and programmes which we register to offer at SU.
Part of this process of registering qualifications requires the writing of learning outcomes on which qualifications, programmes, and modules are based. In some cases, the HEQC cooperate with professional bodies to do quality assurance, as is the case in Engineering programmes, where the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) and the CHE are in a joint partnership to accredit programmes. Outcomes have to feed into the broader programme and qualification outcomes, to ensure constructive alignment, as with all outcomes.
When writing outcomes one has to keep the level descriptors of the National Qualifications Framework in mind. The National Qualifications Framework is a comprehensive system for the classification, registration, publication and articulation of quality assured national qualifications.
A level descriptor is a statement describing learning achievements at a particular level of the National Qualifications Framework. “Level” means one of the series of levels of learning achievement arranged in ascending order from one to ten according to which the NQF is organised and to which qualification types are aligned. Click here to see a diagram of the ten levels of the NQF.
The level descriptors provide a broad indication of the types of learning outcomes and assessment criteria that are appropriate to a qualification at that level. To see the level descriptors, click here.
Outcomes also need to be aligned to the generic or critical cross-field outcomes, which cut across disciplinary and subject areas. Here we can also think about the SU graduate attributes (to see them click here, and go to the SU Strategy for T&L) and the SU Teaching and Learning Policy (2018). These SU graduate attributes also need to find expression in learning outcomes and have to be addressed across modules which make up a programme or qualification, as they speak to the holistic development of the students and to the relevance of programme outcomes for the work and societal contexts into which our graduates enter.
The shift towards OBE has gone hand-in-hand with broader shifts in the field of HE and at SU:
From a lecturer-centred approach which focused more on the aims and objectives of the teacher, and is associated with students being more passive and dependent on the teacher for their learning;
to
- A student-centred approach, which is associated with students being more active, independent and taking responsibility for their own learning; to
- A learning-centred approach, which places more focus on the learning process rather than on the lecturer or the student per se.
- This approach sees an increasing interest in learning outcomes, with the understanding that teaching and learning is a shared endeavour with reciprocal responsibilities between students, academic staff, the support services divisions and management bodies. SU adopts a holistic understanding of teaching and learning, which includes both individual and social understandings of teaching and learning.
The SU Teaching and Learning Policy of 2018 promotes a learning-centred approach to teaching that is focused on learning as a partnership, where students are seen as co-creators of knowledge and learning environments. In a learning-centred approach, teaching activities facilitate knowledge-building and actively engage students in their own learning. To this end, SU should ensure that the learning-centred approach to teaching is integrated across the institution and that sufficient, suitable resources are available to support teaching and learning.
The SU policy on Teaching and Learning Material also ensures alignment between learning material and programme outcomes, for instance in study guides.
Learning outcomes are thus a core component of any curriculum at programme and module levels. It plays a role in planning the learning, teaching and assessment process, and is a requirement for HE administration. So the purpose of learning outcomes is to express what students are expected to achieve and how they are expected to demonstrate that achievement. Outcomes are different to aims and objectives, which are forward-looking and broad statements of intent: Aim=broad; objective=specific. Aims and objectives are usually teaching focused, rather than learning focused (refer to Clarification of Terminology).
Outcomes are the end goals of the learning process and describe the result of student learning at the end of the learning opportunities. This is not about content but rather about the concepts and underlying principles of the field of study. So, outcomes start at the back end, where you want your students to be at the end of a programme or module, and they are focused on learning. Then you plan backwards – how you are going to assess it, how you are going to teach it and what you are going to teach. This process is called backwards design (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005).
The SU assessment policy similarly notes that assessment practices must be aligned with learning outcomes and teaching methods to play a “key role in striving towards effective assessment”. To ensure valid assessment, a programme should be planned and developed in such a manner that students are given the appropriate opportunity to demonstrate how they achieved the stated outcomes, both specific and generic. For instance, the assessment policy reminds us that the assessment methods (such as tests, assignments, tasks, practicals, orals, etc.) should be selected on the basis of the nature of the learning outcomes that are being assessed, so that they are aligned and appropriate to the learning in the programme.
Clarification of terminology
When reading the literature or when talking to colleagues, different terminology is sometimes used. This often creates confusion as to what the differences are between aims, objectives and learning outcomes.
The distinction between these concepts is not always clear, but useful descriptions are given by Kennedy, Hyland and Ryan in their 2007 article entitled Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: A Practical Guide.
The article is available HERE.
The aim of a module or programme
The aim of a module or programme is a broad general statement of teaching intention, i.e. it indicates what the teacher intends to cover in a block of learning. Aims are usually written from the teacher’s point of view to indicate the general content and direction of the module. For example, the
aim of a module could be “to introduce students to the basic principles of atomic structure” or “to provide a general introduction to the history of Ireland in the twentieth century”.
The objective of a module or programme
Thus, the aim of a module gives the broad purpose or general teaching intention of the module, whilst the objective gives more specific information about what the teaching of the module hopes to achieve.
One of the problems caused by the use of objectives is that sometimes they are written in terms of teaching intention and other times they are written in terms of expected learning, i.e. there is confusion in the literature in terms of whether objectives belong to the teacher-centered approach or the outcome-based approach.
The great advantages of learning outcomes
One of the great advantages of learning outcomes is that they are clear statements of what the students are expected to achieve and how they are expected to reliably demonstrate that achievement. Thus, learning outcomes are more precise, easier to compose and far clearer than objectives.
From one perspective, learning outcomes can be considered as a sort of “common currency” that assists modules and programmes to be more transparent at both local and international level.
From another perspective, a learning outcome is a statement of how your students will benefit from the module. The definition mostly used states that learning outcomes are statements of what students should know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of a learning process (Kennedy et al, 2007).
Taxonomies organise educators’ expected learning outcomes into a hierarchy
Taxonomies of learning
Why organise outcomes into a hierarchy?
Taxonomies organise educators’ expected learning outcomes into a hierarchy from less to more complex and they are thus helpful when you think about the expected learning outcomes for your module or programme. The work of Benjamin Bloom (1913 – 1999) provides a useful starting point when writing outcomes. Bloom identified three domains of learning, and within each of these domains he recognised that there was an ascending order of complexity:
Bloom's three domains of learning
A systematic way of describing how a learner’s performance develops from simple to complex
Bloom’s taxonomy is thus a systematic way of describing how a learner’s performance develops from simple to complex levels in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains of learning. His work is most advanced in the cognitive domain where he drew up a classification (or taxonomy) of thinking behaviours from the simple recall of facts, up to the processes of analysis and evaluation.
His publication Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, the Cognitive Domain (1956) has become widely used throughout the world to assist in the preparation of curriculum and evaluation material. The taxonomy provides a framework in which one can build upon prior learning to develop more complex levels of understanding.
Bloom's domains, a revision of Bloom's domains and the SOLO taxonomy
Bloom’s taxonomy is thus a systematic way of describing how a learner’s performance develops from simple to complex levels in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains of learning. His work is most advanced in the cognitive domain where he drew up a classification (or taxonomy) of thinking behaviours from the simple recall of facts, up to the processes of analysis and evaluation.
His publication Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, the Cognitive Domain (1956) has become widely used throughout the world to assist in the preparation of curriculum and evaluation material. The taxonomy provides a framework in which one can build upon prior learning to develop more complex levels of understanding.
The Cognitive domain involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills (Bloom 1956). At any level of education, some memorisation of information is essential, but the mere transmission of knowledge is never an appropriate goal for a module or programme. Even in the most basic and introductory of courses, expected learning outcomes should emphasize, at least, comprehension and application of knowledge. On a postgraduate level the outcomes should be on the higher cognitive levels.
To assist us with formulating outcomes that show and guide progression of knowledge and skills, Bloom proposed that the cognitive or knowledge domain is composed of six successive levels arranged in a hierarchy. Each of these levels subsumes the level(s) below as these lower levels provide the foundation for the higher levels. See here for more.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revisited the cognitive domain in the mid-nineties and changed the names of the six levels from nouns to verbs and also rearranged them. This ‘new’ version of Bloom’s original taxonomy swopped the synthesis and evaluation levels.
To assist us in formulating outcomes, Bloom has drawn up a list of action verbs that can be used when formulating outcomes:
The Affective Domain is concerned with issues relating to the emotional, attitudinal and value components of learning. According to Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia (1973) this includes the manner in which we deal with things through habits of mind, feelings, values, beliefs and attitudes.
Taxonomy for learning in the Affective (attitudes/values/being) domain (Rothwell and Kazanas 1992)
The psychomotor domain has to do with physical movement, coordination and use of motor skills (Simpson 1972). These skills range from manual tasks to complex tasks like dancing or operating a complex piece of machinery. Developing these skills requires practice.
Bloom did not compile a taxonomy for the psychomotor domain, but various others did.
One of these taxonomies is called the “see one do one teach one”. It unpacks learning from being unconsciously incompetent to unconsciously competent.
Taxonomy for learning in the Psychomotor (skills/doing) domain (“see one do one teach one”):
Another taxonomy in the psychomotor domain was developed by Dave (1970). He started with imitation and ended with naturalization.
- Imitation – Observing and copying someone else.
- Manipulation – Guided via instruction to perform a skill.
- Precision – Accuracy, proportion and exactness exist in the skill performance without the presence of the original source.
- Articulation – Two or more skills combined, sequenced, and performed consistently.
- Naturalization – Two or more skills combined, sequenced, and performed consistently and with ease. The performance is automatic with little physical or mental exertion.
Harrow (1972) also developed a taxonomy for the psychomotor learning domain. It is organized according to the degree of coordination including involuntary responses and learned capabilities:
- Reflex movements – Automatic reactions.
- Basic fundamental movement – Simple movements that can build to more complex sets of movements.
- Perceptual – Environmental cues that allow one to adjust movements.
- Physical activities – Things requiring endurance, strength, vigor, and agility.
- Skilled movements – Activities where a level of efficiency is achieved.
- Non-discursive communication – Body language.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) suggested that the cognitive domain is the intersection of the cognitive process dimension and the knowledge dimension.
The cognitive process dimension represents a continuum of increasing cognitive complexity over six levels starting from remembering and moving upwards to creating, as explained in the section on The Cognitive Domain.
They identified nineteen specific cognitive processes in this dimension. These are given in the table below:
Table 1. The Cognitive Processes Dimension
The knowledge dimension classifies four types of knowledge that students may be required to construct. These knowledge types range from concrete to abstract, and from the factual to the metacognitive. Table 2 below gives a representation of the knowledge dimension.
Table 2. The Knowledge Dimension
The knowledge dimension is unpacked by Hugo (2015) in his book on the educational imagination. He does this according to the principle of “many become one and are increased by one”. What this means is that many facts make up one concept, and are increased by one. Many concepts become one procedure and are increased by this one procedure. Many procedures become one metacognitive strategy and are increased by this strategy. This principle aligns with the idea that the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
Hugo (2015) explains if we are moving from concrete to abstract levels of knowledge, then a simple set of four levels can catch it:
- Lots of facts come together as a concept that catches what these particular facts have in common.
- Many concepts can be combined in all sorts of maps and systems, but they also shift into something new.
- Concepts come together with other concepts and other facts and build towards procedures you can follow, using a number of facts and concepts together.
- When working with facts, concepts and procedures, you can look at your own processes of learning and understanding, and develop a metacognitive kind of knowledge that reflects on how you are learning, and improve on it.
We, however, cannot learn facts, concepts, procedures or metacognitive strategies in a simple way by just memorising and remembering them. We need to do more in order to build our knowledge – we need to apply, analyse, evaluate and create. These are levels in the cognitive processes we use when we work in the knowledge domain as explained with Bloom’s taxonomy.
If we then bring these two dimensions together, we get a three dimensional model of learning outcomes in the Cognitive Domain. This revised model allows us to imagine different learning outcomes.
Another, less known tool you might want to use when formulating outcomes and planning or doing assessment, is the SOLO taxonomy.
John Biggs (1995) designed the SOLO Taxonomy to offer a Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO), describing systematically how students’ learning and performance develop from simple to complex levels. The SOLO taxonomy has five stages, namely Prestructural, Unistructural, Multistructural (which are all in a quantitative phase), and Relational and Extended Abstract (which are in a qualitative phase).
The SOLO taxonomy can be used to structure the knowledge building of students and it is also useful when assessing student learning. The SOLO taxonomy helps to map levels of understanding that can be built into the intended learning outcomes, and it helps to create the assessment criteria or rubrics.
For more information about the SOLO Taxonomy you can check our References section or visit John Biggs’s website:
http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy
Guideline for formulating outcomes
Earlier we indicated that outcomes are formulated using “backward design” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005). This means we start with the end in mind. We can explain this using a journey metaphor.
The formulated outcomes give students (and the lecturer) the end point or the destination. The journey is mapped according to the learning opportunities, which are aligned to the beacons and pit stops on route to the destination.
The teaching methods we employ during the learning opportunities relate to our decisions about which transport we will use, which music we will listen to and who will be travelling with us. At the end, we will have to confirm that we have arrived at the original destination which is similar to the assessment where the students will have to demonstrate that they have reached the outcomes.
- What are the important concepts and principles students should learn and retain? What are some of the methods and processes they should master? What are some of the ways of thinking they need to develop?
- How will I know students have mastered the knowledge and skills that is expected of them? What will I accept as evidence of progress?
- What are some effective problems, activities, cases or tasks for developing students’ ability to meet these expectations?
These thoughts could then inform and become the outcomes that you formulate by writing it according to the following structure:
-
Determine the course of the learning opportunity
Example: After completion of the module/programme… -
Then spell out the following (not necessarily in this order): a subject (It is often recommended that a form of address in the first person is used).
Example: After completion of this module you (or the candidates/students…) will … -
One or more action verbs associated with the intended cognitive process
Example: After completion of this module, you will be able to … identity, indicate, distinguish, compare, expose, evaluate, etc. -
The object referring to the knowledge students are expected to acquire or construct
Example: After completion of this module, you will be able to identify a specific set of characteristics/elaborate a specific use of a formula/, compare various things with each other/, solve a specific problem etc. -
A specific framework (context) or specific circumstances
Example: After completion of this module, you will be able to perform a task within a specific context or under specific circumstances (e.g., within a specific time or utilising specific resources and/or sources, with a specific aim in mind, within a specified group context etc.) -
A specific set of values and norms and/or attitudes which direct thought and action
Example: After completion of this module, you will be able to perform a specific task under specific circumstances with the critical awareness and social sensitivity that can be required of …
EXAMPLE:
By the end of this workshop participants will be able to:
- Differentiate between beneficiary; programme institutional and systems indicators within an experiential education context.
- Select a template suitable for use in a programme/activity within a learning environment.
- Develop monitoring and evaluation indicators for a programme/activity at micro, macro and meso levels.
Criteria for well-written outcomes
You can formulate as many learning outcomes as needed to clearly reflect what students will be able to demonstrate at the end of a module. It will, however, be beneficial for the assessment of these outcomes if you have between five and ten learning outcomes.
A well-written learning outcome is likely to:
- Include various levels of learning and cognitive complexity;
- Be achievable by students within the time available and at their level of learning;
- Be assessable by some reasonable and manageable form of assessment;
- Be assessable using a variety of assessment strategies;
- Be communicated in a systematic way. Learning outcomes become more powerful when they are known and explicitly shared and understood;
- Avoid verbs that are vague, unclear, or open to multiple interpretations (e.g. appreciate, understand, learn, comprehend, gain knowledge of, be aware, realize);
- Be balanced. If the outcome is too detailed, there is a need to develop several other outcomes to ensure the breadth of learning is represented in a programme. If the outcome is too broad, it becomes difficult to demonstrate that the learning and assessment within a programme meet the outcomes.
Another set of criteria that people sometimes use is the SMART model:
According to this model, outcomes should adhere to the following criteria:
S MART
Specific: Not fuzzy or vague
S M ART
Measurable: Must be able to assess if reached
SM A RT
Attainable: What is possible given infrastructure and logistics
SMA R T
Relevant: Linked to aim of programme
SMAR T
Time: Feasible within module/semester, rotation
Guidelines
At any level of education, some memorization of information is essential, but the mere transmission of knowledge is never an appropriate goal for a course or programme. Even in the most basic and introductory of courses, expected learning outcomes should emphasize, at least, comprehension and application of knowledge. On a post-graduate level, the outcomes should be on the higher cognitive levels (level 3 and up).
Tell your students in your learning outcomes what they will be expected to do to demonstrate that they have achieved the outcome. If the outcome involves understanding, perhaps students will outline, explain, describe, model, or apply what they have learned in a new context. If the outcome involves critical or creative thinking, perhaps they will synthesize, evaluate, or extend what they have learned.
Ensure your learning outcomes focus not on what you as lecturer will do, but on what students will be able to do at the end of the module. A phrase such as “students will be exposed to…” is not about student outcomes.
Avoid vague terms such as know, appreciate, understand, be familiar with, or learn. Such terms could suggest that you have to think more carefully about what you want students to get out of your course.
Potential concerns with learning outcomes
One of the main concerns about the adoption of learning outcomes is the philosophical one that academic study should be open-ended and that learning outcomes do not fit in with this liberal view of learning (Adam, 2004) as it could be perceived as too prescriptive. This need not be the case if learning outcomes are written with a focus on higher-order thinking and application skills. However, if learning outcomes are written within a very narrow framework, this could limit learning and result in a lack of intellectual challenge to learners. There might be a danger of an assessment-driven curriculum if learning outcomes are too confined.
Forms A and B
At Stellenbosch University we have to document our programmes and modules using Form A and Form B. Part of the completion of these documents requests the formulation of outcomes, assessment plans and module contents. The Form A information would usually be included in the yearbook and the Form B information becomes part of the module framework. For more information about yearbook changes, new programmes and modules, contact The Centre for Academic Planning and Quality Assurance.
