Defining learning outcomes

Learning outcomes are, quite simply, what we want our students to take away from a particular unit of study, whether a module, a course, or a program. They are a defined set of learning objectives associated with an educational activity, the criteria to measure the success or failure of those objectives, and an assessment mechanism to measure the mastery of those objectives.

Learning outcomes can also be defined as a buzzword that means whatever the individual using it wants it to mean. For one group, it may mean an employable graduate. For another, it might mean someone who can go to grad school. And for yet another, it might define the ability to read and write and count. Outcomes are a function of purpose, and to focus on outcomes without understanding purpose is to create expectations that nurture government bureaucracy and promote an environment where some partially succeed, all partially fail, and the elite are the primary beneficiaries. So the question really becomes: learning outcomes for whom? And for what? It is not a "one size fits all" solution.

Allen points out that at an institutional or programmatic level, learning outcomes need to be established for what we want our students to have acquired by the time they leave with a degree or certificate. At the baccalaureate level, he says, learning outcomes seem to fall into six to 10 broad areas (at least for those institutions that focus on outcomes): communication skills (written and oral); quantitative fluency; critical thinking; information literacy; technology fluency; scientific fluency; historical perspective; global perspective or cultural awareness; citizenship; and, of course, specific disciplinary knowledge. These outcome areas are the ones often advocated by regional accrediting agencies as well as some state regulatory commissions.

With the great majority of its institutions autonomous and government funded, Read says universities in the United Kingdom see their primary objective as increasing knowledge and diffusing it throughout society. "They all would like to provide higher quality courses and better educated graduates. Unfortunately, they are under twin constraints of having to enlarge their student intake on relatively fixed budgets, while having to maintain quality. That they have been managing to do this, more or less, is an indication that they have improved learning outcomes. However, there is a dilemma between tightening up efficiency and flexibility and maintaining the ability to take advantage of new technologies. There needs to be some freedom and willingness to innovate and take risks in the systems for HEI's to be able to develop and try out new technologies and co-develop enhanced practices and processes."

The old adage defines insanity as expecting different outcomes from the same processes. In like fashion, without clear measures and defined purposes, higher education cannot expect significant improvement in learning outcomes. Vague generalizations are one of the most effective tools in the academic kit for avoiding change.

Jolene Koester, president of California State University, Northridge, believes improvement will occur with specificity, through measurement or assessment, and in the public dissemination of those results. She also believes providing faculty with incentives can bring about positive change.

"Tuition-dependent institutions must evolve to more business-like models to maximize limited resources in increasingly competitive environments driven by powerful, for-profit entities," says Lendo.

Devine says technology has enabled institutions to more effectively communicate with students, monitor their progress through the learning process, and open the door for increased collaboration between students and faculty for research. "Not only has it improved learning, but it also has opened up the marketplace. Non-traditional students who couldn't afford to quit their jobs, abandon their families and move to another city to attend college can now improve their lives and engage in lifelong learning."

"We have to change the business model for higher education, especially in the public sector," adds Allen. "This is particularly true in the outcomes assessment area. Learning assessment in higher education is like a cottage industry. Every faculty member does it differently, according to their own judgment, interests, and personal experience. At least on a programmatic or institutional basis, we need to move to systemic, scalable approaches. We need to take advantage of the learning technology available to us now."