Learning Outcomes as a Key Concept in Policy Documents throughout Policy Changes

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 275-296

  Prøitz, Tine Sophie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

document analysis; education policy; learning outcomes

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926253392     PISSN: 00313831     EISSN: 14701170     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2014.904418     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Aamodt, P. O., Prøitz, T. S., Hovdhaugen, E., & Stensaker, B. (2007). Lœringsutbytte i høyere utdanning. En drøfting av definisjoner, utviklingstrekk og måleproblemer [Learning outcomes in higher education. Definitions, developments and problems of measurement]. Report no. 40. Oslo. NIFU STEP
2. Aasen, P. (2003). What happened to social-democratic progressivism in Scandinavia? Restructuring education in Sweden and Norway in the 1990s. In M. Apple (Ed.), The state and the politics of knowledge (pp. 109–148). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
3. Aasen, P. (2012). Accountability under ambiguity. Dilemmas and contradictions in education. In A.-L. Østern, K. Smith, T. Krüger, M.-B. Postholm, & T. Ryghaug (Eds.), teacher education research between national identity and global trends (pp. 77–92). Trondheim: Akademika.
4. Aasen, P., Prøitz, T. S., & Sandberg, N. (2013). Knowledge regimes and contractions in education reforms. Educational Policy. published online before print 8. February 2013. Retrieved from http://epx.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/06/0895904813475710.full.pdf+html
5. Aasen, P., Møller, J., Rye, E., Ottesen, E., Prøitz, T. S., & Hertzberg, F. (2012). Kunnskapsløftet som styringsreform - et løft eller et løfte? Forvaltningsnivåenes og institusjonenes rolle i implementeringen av reformen [The knowledge promotion reform. The role of levels of government and institutions in reform implementation]. Report no. 20, Oslo, NIFU
6. Adam, S. (2004). Using learning outcomes. A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing “learning outcomes” at the local, national and international levels. Paper presented at the UK Bologna seminar, Heriott-Wyatt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
7. Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93–108. doi: 10.1080/03075079612331381487
8. Ålvik, T. (1972). Undervisningslœre: aktuelle synspunkter og problemer [The science of teaching: perspectives and problems]. Oslo: Gyldendal
9. Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2011). Analysing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (3rd ed.) (pp. 77–93). Los Angeles: Sage.
10. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
11. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
12. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027
13. Brady, L. (1996). Outcome-based education: A critique. The Curriculum Journal, 7(1), 5–16. doi: 10.1080/0958517960070102
14. Burke, J. (1995). Outcomes, learning and the curriculum. Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and other qualifications. London: Falmer.
15. Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). The outcomes question in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 527–546. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00012-9
16. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (2001). Creating Accountability in Big City School Systems, Urban Diversity Series No. 102, Colombia University, New York
17. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00372.x
18. Dale, E. L., & Wærness, J. I. (2006). Vurdering og læring i en elevaktiv skole [Assessment and learning in a student active school]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
19. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The education imagination. On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
20. Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. New York: Routledge.
21. Engelsen, B. U. (1973). Forstår vi undervisningsmålene? Målpresisering, målbeskrivelse og målanalyse som grunnlag for måltolkning [Do we understand the objectives of teaching?Definition, analysis and interpretation of objectives]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
22. Engelsen, K. S., & Smith, K. (2010). Is “Excellent” good enough? Education Inquiry, 1(4), 415–431
23. Ewell, P. (2005). Applying learning outcomes to higher education: An overview. Paper prepared for the Hong Kong University Grants Committee, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
24. Fuller, B. (2009). Policy and place – learning from decentralised reforms. In G. Sykes, G. Schneider, D. N. Plank & T. G. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research (pp. 855–875). New York. Routledge
25. Furman, G. C. (1994). Outcomes-based education and accountability. Education and Urban Society, 26(4), 417–437. doi: 10.1177/0013124594026004008
26. Gagné, R. M. (1974). Learning for instruction. Illinois: Dryden Press Hinsdale.
27. Hatch, T. (2013). Beneath the surface of accountability: Answerability, responsibility and capacity-building in recent education reforms in Norway. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 113–138. doi: 10.1007/s10833-012-9206-1
28. Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Educational outcomes, modern and postmodern interpretations: Response to Smyth and Dow. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 27–42. doi: 10.1080/01425690095144
29. Haug, P. (2003). Evaluering av Reform 97. Sluttrapport frå styret for Program for evaluering av Reform 97 [The evaluation of Reform 97]. Oslo: Norges Forskningsråd.
30. Hertzberg, F. (2008). Assessment of writing in Norway: A case of balancing dilemmas. In A. Havnes & L. McDowell (Eds.), Balancing Dilemmas in Assessment and Learning in Contemporary Education (pp. 51–60). New York: Routledge
31. Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456. doi: 10.1080/00220270801989818
32. Hussey, S., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368. doi: 10.1080/13562510309399
33. Hussey, S., & Smith, P. (2008). Learning outcomes: A conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 107–115. doi: 10.1080/13562510701794159
34. Imsen, G. (1984). Elevens verden: innføring i pedagogisk psykologi. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
35. James, B., & Brown, S. (2005). Grasping the TLRP nettle: Preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes. Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 7–30. doi: 10.1080/0958517042000336782
36. Kellaghan, T., & V. Greaney (2001). Using assessment to improve the quality of education. Paris: UNESCO.
37. Lassnigg, L. (2012). ‘Lost in translation’: Learning outcomes and the governance of education. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 299–330. doi: 10.1080/13639080.2012.687573
38. Lawn, M. (2011). Governing through data in English education. Education Inquiry, 2(2), 277–288. doi: 10.3402/edui.v2i2.21980
39. Lie, S., Kjærnsli, M., Roe, A., & Turmo, A. (2001). Godt rustet for framtida? Norske 15-åringers kompetanse i lesing og realfag i et internasjonalt perspektiv [Well prepared for the future? The reading and science competency of Norwegian 15 year old students in an international perspective]. PISA/Institutt for Lærerutdanning og Skoleutvikling, Universitetet i Oslo. Retrieved 15 September 2012, from http://folk.uio.no/rolfvo/Hele_rapporten.pdf
40. MacBeath, J., & Moos, L. (2009). First editorial. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 1–4.
41. Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernising education: New public management reform in the Norwegian education system. Journal of Education Administration and History, 45(4), 336–352. doi: 10.1080/00220620.2013.822353
42. OECD (2011). Review on evaluation and assessment frameworks for improving school outcomes country background report for Norway January 2011. Retrieved 15 September 2012 from http://www.udir.no
43. O'Day, J. (2004). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 15–44). New York: Teachers College Press, Colombia University
44. O'Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In Fuhrman, S. (Ed.) Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
45. OECD (2011) Review on evaluation and assessment frameworks for improving school outcomes country background report for Norway January 2011. Retrieved 18 September 2012, from http://www.udir.no/Upload/Rapporter/2011/5/OECD_country_report_norway.pdf?epslanguage=no
46. Otter, S. (1992). Learning outcomes in higher education. A Development Project Report. London: UDACE, Department of Employment.
47. Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–163. doi: 10.1080/02680930902733121
48. Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2011). Fabricating Quality in Education: Data and governance in Europe. New York: Routledge
49. Pettersson, D (2008). Internationell kunskapsbedömning som inslag i nationell styrning av skolan. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis [International knowledge assessments: an element of national educational steering]. Uppsala Studies in Education No. 120. Uppsala universitet: Uppsala
50. Prøitz, T. S. (2010). Learning outcomes – What are they? Who defines them? When and where are they defined? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 119–137. doi: 10.1007/s11092-010-9097-8
51. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Philadelphia: Basic Books.
52. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (1997–1998). Annex for the Ministry of church, education and research.
53. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (1998–1999). Annex for the Ministry of church, education and research
54. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (1999–2000). Annex for the Ministry of church, education and research.
55. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2000–2001). Annex for the Ministry of church, education and research.
56. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2001–2002). Annex for the Ministry of church, education and research.
57. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2002–2003). Annex for the Ministry of church, education and research.
58. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2003–2004). Annex for the Ministry of education and research.
59. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2004–2005). Annex for the Ministry of education and research.
60. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2005–2006). Annex for the Ministry of education and research.
61. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2006–2007). Annex for the Ministry of education and research.
62. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2007–2008). Annex for the Ministry of education and research.
63. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2008–2009). Annex for the Ministry of education and research.
64. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2009–2010). Annex for the Ministry of education and research.
65. Report No. 1 to the Storting. (2010–2011). Annex for the Ministry of church, education and research
66. Saarinen, T. (2008). Position of text and discourse analysis in higher education policy research. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 719–728. doi: 10.1080/03075070802457090
67. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
68. Searle, John R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics, January, 1–22.
69. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X029007004
70. Shepard, L. A. (2007). Classroom assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 623–646). Westport, CT: Praeger
71. Skedsmo, G. (2011). Formulation and realisation of evaluation policy: inconsistencies and problematic issues. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(1), 5–20
72. Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome based education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67–72.
73. Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis of authentic restructuring and reform. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 4–8.
74. Smythe, J., & Dow, A. (1998). What's wrong with outcomes? Spotter planes, action plans and steerage of the educational workplace. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(3), 291–302. doi: 10.1080/0142569980190302
75. Stemler, S., & Bebell, D. (1998). An Empirical Approach to Understanding and Analyzing the Mission Statements of Selected Educational Institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the New England Educational Research Organization, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. ERIC Doc No. ED 442 202.
76. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved September 1, 2011, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17
77. Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283 doi: 10.1080/00313830600743274
78. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
79. Yin, R. K. (1994) Case study techniques: Design and method (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.