1. DEVELOPING REALISTIC LEARNING OUTCOMES Trevor Hussey & Patrick Smith

2. 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."

3. 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."

4. THE STORY SO FAR… Concern for realistic learning outcomes Dangers of disaggregation of curriculum This critique should be understood as…

5. THE TROUBLE WITH LEARNING OUTCOMES Often not referred to Spurious clarity, explicitness & objectivity Insensitive to different disciplines Restrictive – thresholds & emergent outcomes

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. THE ARTICULATED CURRICULUM Intentions Judgements Content Methods CONTEXT

9. ILOs & ELOs ILOs ELOs Contingent Related Incidental

10. PREDICTED/UNPREDICTED, DESIRED/UNDESIRED Predicted Unpredicted DesiredUndesired A B C D

11. TOWARDS MORE REALISTIC LEARNING OUTCOMES More generous LOs Learners’ as well as teachers’ LOs Changing curricular arrangements Some outcomes cannot be measured

12. 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.”

13. TRANSITIONS & THE UNDERGRADUATE CAREER Pre-entry & Induction Year OneYear TwoYear ThreePost Graduation DEPENDENCE INTERDEPENDENCE AUTONOMY

14. 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?

15. 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’

16. SOURCES & REFERENCES Bruner 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.

17. SOURCES & REFERENCES Jackson 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.

18. SOURCES & REFERENCES McAlpine 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).

19. CONTACT DETAILS Professor Trevor Hussey Email: Trevor.Hussey@bcuc.ac.uk Professor Patrick Smith Email: Patrick.Smith@bcuc.ac.uk