Malaysia The CEDEFOP Learning Outcomes study Tom Leney and Jean Gordon CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia CEDEFOP October 2007 Overview of the study: aims, methods, coverage

Malaysia Aim: Comprehensive focus on learning outcomes Conceptualisation, development and use across the different subsystems and phases of education and training Informal and non-formal as well as formal learning Lifelong learning, qualifications, curriculum and assessment Qualification frameworks CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Themes for investigation Conceptual clarification Learning outcomes as an aspect of policy reform Learning outcomes impacting on practical reform at the levels of institutions and learners CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Methods used Conceptualisations - a literature review Coverage of 32 countries: ‘fiche methodology’ enquiries through EURYDICE and ReferNet other research: NQFs, ECOTEC’s draft country reports Validation (under way) with country experts. And, the conference. CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Outline of the report Part 1 Introduction and background Overview, methods used, concepts of learning outcomes Part 2 Descriptive analysis LOs at systemic level LOs and qualifications LOs and curriculum and assessment LOs and recognition/validation Part 3 The analytical part Here, the conference is formative CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Reflections and conclusions CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Concepts of learning outcomes How are learning outcomes, levels and descriptors developed? Evolving plurality: sub-sectors geographical Evolving purposes – from employability to competences for the 21st century CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Pluralities and purposes ‘preparing students for life as active citizens in a democratic society; preparing students for their future careers and enabling their personal development; creating and maintaining a broad, advanced knowledge base; and stimulating research and innovation.’ Bologna Process – London communiqué Or, Repairing a fault in the machine CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Derivation of learning outcomes Type 1: Learning outcomes based on a theoretical or research formulation Type 2: Learning outcomes based on negotiation between stakeholders Type 3 : Learning outcomes borrowed/adapted from elsewhere CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Learning outcomes according to their function Learning outcomes as reference level descriptors as a vehicle for quality assurance as a tool for relating theoretical and practical learning to link learners’ cognitive, skill and affective learning in the formulation of lifelong learning policies as a lever for reform or modernisation for legibility or transparency of learning CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Learning outcomes according to their function (cont’d) Can concepts of learning outcomes bridge the gap between theoretical and practical learning? Can the same set of learning outcomes operate in general, vocational and higher education, or does the learning context make this difficult or impracticable? Are the learning outcomes that a school or work organisation develops the same as those needed to evaluate the performance of a system? CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Learning outcomes at the systemic level How far have the European countries shifted towards using learning outcomes at systemic level? Specifically, for developing lifelong learning policies? Do we observe a unified approach to learning outcomes in countries’ general education and VET systems? How do approaches to learning outcomes in higher education fit into the picture? CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia LOs in general, vocational and HE qualifications Vocational qualifications Learning outcomes being referenced to a functional or research-based analysis of labour market Categorisation of knowledge, skills, etc., paying differing attention to technical and softer skills. General education qualifications Subject-based knowledge and subject-related skills have a traditional and durable influence. Higher education qualifications The innovative use of learning outcomes is a slow- burning fuse. CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia LOs in curricula and assessment Approach 1:Narrow targets circumscribed by the subjects in the curriculum Approach 2:Core curriculum in which learning outcomes have a prominent position Approach 3: Holistic concepts of the learning outcomes, which curriculum and assessment should follow CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia LOs in curricula and assessment - examples Approach 2 A core curriculum in Finland. The socle commun in France. Bildungsstandard in Germany. The national minimum curriculum in Malta Approach 3 In Sweden, steering through learning outcomes goals - goals to be attained’ and ‘goals to strive towards’. In Denmark, 2003 Better Education Plan - a personal education plan for each student. UK (E/NI), ‘the aims, objectives, learning outcomes come before the specification of the curriculum CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Identifying LOs in recognition/validation Able to draw on ECOTEC’s work. Is recognition high priority in national systems? In some: yes. In others: no Concerning learning outcomes, Ireland and France are interesting Ireland: Emphasis on LOs, enabling mechanism France: Emphasis on the jury methodology; LOs may be implicit. CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Four Issues, and questions for you CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Issue 1 Learning outcomes and the lifelong learning agenda Lack of connectedness of education systems in implementing a lifelong learning agenda? Are the same types of learning outcomes suited to all types of learning? Achieving the balance: Learning outcomes-led education and training, knowledge-based and subject inputs, high quality teaching and assessment methods. CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Issue 2 shifting from a specific focus on VET? General education LOs: reflection of national systems/approaches & focus on “21st century” key competences? The most input-driven sub-sector appears to be upper secondary general education! Do we expect “knock-on” effects in school education of developing learning outcomes in higher education? CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Issue 3 NQFs - one ‘picture’ of development, or several? EQF as a meta-framework has developed rapidly through the ‘OMC’ approach to E&T NQFs are a relatively new policy device, tried out in several countries globally, but not so many! Learn the lessons of experience: Scotland South Africa Take care! Take time! CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Issue 4 New research into learning/outcomes Brain research and learning sciences Plasticity of the brain – “learning really is a lifelong activity” Holistic approaches recognising the interdependence of physical/intellectual well-being interplay of the emotional and the cognitive facilitating the learning process Managing one’s emotions - a key skill for an effective learner Implications for policy, pedagogy, etc? CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Issues for a future agenda The personalisation agenda: implications for learning and teaching? Focus of teacher training – is it following the trend towards learning outcomes? School leadership/management training – implications for organisation (and resouces). Assessment – more inderstanding is needed. Bridging gap in research between different approches and sub-sectors. Other? CEDEFOP October 2007

Malaysia Asking for your help in Thessaloniki What have we misunderstood? Where are the gaps in our analysis? In your view, what conclusions should we be reaching? Can you provide powerful examples? CEDEFOP October 2007