The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

USING LEARNING OUTCOMES

3 LEARNING OUTCOMES AND THE BOLOGNA PROCESS (implications)

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The Bologna process represents a strong desire amongst participating countries for radical educational reform. It commits them to creating 'the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world''. It seeks to ' enhance the attractiveness and competitiveness of higher education institutions in Europe' by the creation of the European Higher Education Area by 2010. The most recent Ministerial meeting in Berlin sought:

'… to review progress achieved and to set priorities and new objectives for the coming years, with a view to speeding up the realisation of the European Higher Education Area.'²⁶

'Ministers emphasise the importance of all elements of the Bologna Process for establishing the European Higher Education Area and stress the need to intensify the efforts at institutional, national and European level. However, to give the Process further momentum, they commit themselves to intermediate priorities for the next two years. They will strengthen their efforts to promote effective quality assurance systems, recognition systems of degrees and period of study.'²⁷

The successful creation of the Higher Education Area is clearly dependent on the introduction of common practical and effective reforms that collectively improve the efficiency and effectiveness of higher education in Europe. The Berlin Communiqué directly identifies 'learning outcomes' as having a role in this process (as indicated in section 1.1 of this report). However, the role of learning outcomes in these matters is not immediately apparent, so there is a need to establish what this position might be in relation to the specific nine Bologna Action Lines as well as the new Berlin priorities.

3.2 CONTRIBUTION OF LEARNING OUTCOMES TO THE BOLOGNA ACTION LINES AND

CURRENT BERLIN PRIORITIES

Taking each Bologna Action Line separately:

3.2.1 Adoption of easily readable and comparable degrees - involves higher education institutions taking full advantage of 'existing tools' in order to facilitate the academic and professional recognition of their course units and degrees. These existing tools are normally identified as the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, 1997 (commonly known as the Lisbon Convention), the Diploma Supplement and the ENIC-NARIC information network. However, the use of learning outcomes (unit/module or as course descriptors) has an obvious role to play in making qualifications more transparent for students, credential evaluators and employers. If qualifications are described in terms of learning outcomes the process of evaluation and recognition is simplified and a more informed and fairer judgement can be made. Furthermore, it would help the systematic recording of information about qualifications in Diploma Supplements. ²⁸

3.2.2 Adoption of a system essentially based on two (now three) main cycles - emphasises the importance of cycles, levels and level descriptors for the correct location of qualifications in any framework. The whole post-Berlin shift in focus towards the introduction of new style national qualifications frameworks and the creation of an over-arching European Qualifications framework can be seen as part of an outcomes-focused approach. The adoption of external reference points and the need for precision and clarity strengthens the case for the use of learning outcomes directly related to levels and level/cycle indicators that will characterise the new system. Finally, not only are learning outcomes a valuable way to express qualifications but they play a similar role with regard to programme specifications. ²⁹

3.2.3 Establishment of a system of credits - implies the development of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) from a simple credit transfer tool into a more sophisticated and powerful credit accumulation and transfer system. The generalisation of ECTS has proceeded as different states have adopted it as the basis of their domestic credit systems. However, this process has been slowed by the lack of levels in ECTS and the imprecise nature of ECTS credits, which in practice at the institutional level are not defined in terms of learning outcomes. There are current moves to remedy these deficiencies ( see section 3.6). Credits expressed in terms of learning outcomes are a powerful way to recognise and quantify learning achievement from different contexts; they also provide an effective structure for relating qualifications. The addition of the learning outcomes dimension has the potential to improve dramatically the effectiveness of ECTS as a true pan-European system.

3.2.4 Promotion of mobility - is an obvious area in which more curriculum transparency would make student exchanges and the full recognition of their studies simpler and easier. The removal of obstacles to the free movement of students and teachers can only be helped if courses are expressed in a common way that makes their content - skills and competences gained - explicit. This makes the process of making judgements about them more precise and effective. In this way both horizontal (within a study programme) and vertical (from one programme to another- first to second cycle) mobility can be improved.

3.2.5 Promotion of cooperation in quality assurance - is an obvious part of creating the European Higher Education Area. Quality assurance plays a vital role increasing mutual trust and confidence between educational systems. The use of learning outcomes and approaches associated with them (external reference points) can play an important part in encouraging common approaches and techniques that directly relate to the establishment of universal standards and assurance techniques. Universal approaches to reference points based on output approaches (learning outcomes) make cross-border judgements as to the level, nature and equivalence of qualifications easier and more accurate.

3.2.6 Promotion of the European dimension in higher education - centres upon the development of modules, courses and curricula at all levels with a 'European' content and orientation. In addition, the development of more integrated study programmes and joint degrees is to be encouraged ( see section 3.4). These initiatives can be aided when the curriculum is expressed in a common and more precise manner by expressing module/course content in terms of learning outcomes. The fit and relationship between units of study is made more transparent and the construction of dual and joint programmes of study is simplified. Similarly the mobility of study units is facilitated where open and distance learning is concerned.

3.2.7 Lifelong learning - is a complex and little developed area. It is recognised that there is a need to improve educational opportunities for all citizens throughout their lives. The steps to align national policies as an integrated part of higher education activities involve the promotion of ' flexible learning paths' and the use of ECTS. Many countries are accepting the need for more flexible and integrated systems of qualifications as a consequence of the objective of creating a lifelong learning society in which citizens learn throughout their lives. The tool to accomplish the necessary linkages between VET and HE, as well as all learning from cradle to grave, is logically the adoption of credit based qualifications frameworks. The medium of credits based on learning outcomes has the potential to integrate in a single progressive structure: school, secondary, vocational training and higher education. The use of credits linked to levels expressed in terms of outcomes is proving to be a viable way to create such all-encompassing qualifications frameworks in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. These frameworks help people of all ages to access appropriate education and training. The expression of learning in terms of learning outcomes is perhaps the only way to accomplish such integrated systems for lifelong learning, capable of including the recognition of non-formal and informal learning (via APL and APEL).

3.2.8 Higher education and students - the employability agenda is strengthened by the adoption of learning outcomes that highlight the generic skills and competencies valued by employers. Similarly, students have much to gain from more explicit course descriptions. The empowerment of students has to include their active participation in educational life and their development as active learners in more student-centred learning systems. Effective student participation can be enhanced when modules and courses are clearly expressed in terms of learning outcomes which allow the learner to see the skills and abilities they should acquire. This also helps them make more informed choices within and between different programmes of learning.

3.2.9 Promote attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area - is an obvious goal and implies an effective, efficient, high-quality educational zone that will attract non-European students and help retain home students. The emphasis put by ministers on 'attractiveness and competitiveness' can be indirectly enhanced by the adoption of learning outcomes approaches and the associated development of student-centred, transparent curricula.

The Berlin Communiqué emphasises the need for particular progress in the areas of (i) quality assurance, (ii) two-cycle system and (iii) the recognition of degrees and periods of study. There is obviously a concern by ministers that the goal of creating the European Higher Education Area by 2010 may not be on course and that the stocktaking exercise for the Bergen summit in 2005 is designed to explore the state of play in these three vital areas. If progress is found to be deficient the implication is that ministers will adopt suitable remedial action or 'corrective measures' to keep the Bologna process on course.

It is arguable that in all three of these priority areas learning outcomes play a significant and even a fundamental role. Without progress at the level of learning outcomes the 2005 stocktaking will be disappointing. The specific reasons for this are explored above in sections 3.2.1-3.2.9. The overall aims of the Bologna process - to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of European higher education and create a 'Europe of knowledge' - require the adoption of output-related, student-focused approaches to education, in place of the traditional input-focused techniques to express, measure and quantify learning. There is evidence that traditional models and methods of expressing qualifications and qualifications structures are giving way to systems based on explicit reference points using learning outcomes and competencies, levels and level indicators, subject reference points (benchmark statements) and qualification descriptors. The motivation for this is that these devices and approaches provide more precision and accuracy as well as facilitate transparency and comparison.

In terms of quality assurance ministers have called for ENQA and others to :

' …develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance…' ³⁰

The adoption of common methodological approaches to express qualifications, levels, and qualifications frameworks must underpin any further development of quality assurance in Europe. It is difficult to see how some of this can be achieved without a common Europe-wide adoption of qualification descriptors and level indicators expressed in terms of learning outcomes.

3.3 TUNING EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURES PROJECT AND LEARNING OUTCOMES

The ' Tuning Educational Structures in Europe' project is a large university-based initiative jointly organised by the universities of Groningen (Netherlands) and Deusto (Bilbao, Spain). ³¹ It started in December 2000 and addresses several of the Bologna action lines, notably the 'adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees (line 1)', the ' adoption of a system based on two cycles (line 2)' and the ' establishment of a system of credits (line 3)'

Phase one of the project (2000-2002)was aimed at identifying points of reference for generic and subject specific competences for first and second cycles in the following subject areas: Business Administration, Chemistry, Education Sciences, Earth Science (Geology), History, Mathematics and Physics. In phase two of the project (2003-2004) European Studies and Nursing were added and the work of phase one was further refined. A projected phase three (2005) will seek to: continue the investigations with the involvement and agreement of more stakeholders; focus on the dissemination of the work; and develop the 'Tuning approach' in terms of recognition, ECTS accumulation, quality, third cycle descriptors, etc. The findings of Tuning phase two were recently presented at the Tuning closing conference in Brussels on 21st May 2004. ³²

Currently, Tuning involves over 130 higher education institutions from the enlarged EU. The name Tuning was chosen for the project to reflect the idea that universities do not look for harmonisation of their degree programmes or any sort of unified, prescriptive or definitive European curricula but simply for points of reference, convergence and common understanding.

The Tuning initiative is proving very influential in promoting the idea of learning outcomes and competences in HEIs throughout Europe. This bottom-up spontaneous initiative has the advantage of encouraging academics (in consultation with students and employers) to explore subject-specific and generic outcomes. ³³

The Tuning project describes learning outcomes in terms of competences and regards them as points of reference for curriculum design and evaluation, not as straightjackets. They allow flexibility and autonomy in the construction of curricula. At the same time, they provide a common language for describing the curricula. In the framework of Tuning 'a methodology' has been developed to understand and improve curricula. Tuning has inter alia focused on 'developing professional profiles and comparable and compatible learning outcomes':

• In consultation with graduates, employers and academics it has evaluated the importance of 30 generic competences and their existence in HEI first cycle qualifications.
• It has developed subject-specific competences (knowledge, understanding and skills) for each of the subject areas that focus on what each area has in common. In effect, it has mapped subject areas and developed common reference points and subject specific competences for each of the pilot disciplines (this has produced something akin to the UK benchmark statements).
• It has begun to explore the relationship between learning outcomes and teaching, learning and assessment.

The Tuning project is recognised as important in that it has raised Europe-wide consciousness about the role and significance of learning outcomes and competences. However, this experience is limited to those institutions currently involved in the project and to those subject disciplines covered. In addition, many HEIs involved in Tuning have not introduced learning outcomes in their institutions nor necessarily within their discipline fields. Despite this, Tuning has accomplished much. It has shown that it is possible to obtain agreement from subject experts drawn from across Europe about the common competences in first cycle programmes. Furthermore, it has raised awareness about the links between teaching, learning and assessment and the articulation of learning outcomes. Finally, it has emphasised the role of generic competences and their significance in the curriculum. These achievements are important in moving European higher education institutions towards outcomes-focused curricula and all that they imply.

3.4 THE ROLE OF LEARNING OUTCOMES IN JOINT/DUAL AWARDS

There is a growing interest in the development of joint degrees as indicated by the Bologna follow-up seminar ' Joint Degrees - Further Development' held in Stockholm 6-7 May 2004 .³⁴ The seminar examined various aspects of joint degrees, integrated curricula and the promotion of the European dimension in higher education, together with associated recognition problems. There appears to be no discussion of the potential role learning outcomes might play in the development and expression of joint degrees apart from the reference by David Coyne (European Commission DG Education and Culture) that linked ' ERASMUS support for the development and delivery of Joint Degrees in combination with the support for tuning exercises in the various thematic networks…'

The 'tuning approach' clearly involves the articulation of learning outcomes and competences of a subject specific and generic nature. The detailed identification of learning outcomes at module and programme level has the potential to aid the process of curriculum design and expression. Learning outcomes would make it easier to identify similarities and differences and to match parts of different programmes of learning. Therefore the adoption of outcome approaches has a potentially important role to play in the curriculum development of joint degrees. They can aid the expression of learning, provide precise guidance on the skills, understanding and abilities developed in the student, and aid the detailed comparison and articulation of different programmes of learning. Perhaps their key contribution lies in the transparency that they can bring to the process of joint programme development and the conjunction of different courses.

In a similar way the development of the ERASMUS cooperation and mobility programme might benefit from the wholesale adoption of learning outcomes to improve the transparency of integrated Masters Courses. Where partnerships are envisaged with 'third countries' the process would also be simplified, particularly where partner countries are already familiar with, and use, learning outcomes.

3.5 LEARNING OUTCOMES AND RECOGNITION TOOLS

The area of recognition plays a pivotal part in the creation of the European Higher Education Area, particularly by seeking to develop and improve methods for the recognition of qualifications based on their level, quality and profile. In the 2003 Vaduz statement the ENIC-NARIC networks stated they would seek to:

'Develop recognition procedures aiming at the recognition of learning outcomes rather than the formal paths that have led to these outcomes. In this, they will in particular build on the results of the Joint Quality Initiative and Tuning projects supported by the European Commission as well as on the work carried out on the recognition of prior learning and non-traditional qualifications. Recognition based on learning outcomes is important also with regard to facilitating lifelong learning.'³⁵

There is a clear acknowledgment by those involved in recognition that learning outcomes have a role in recognition by making learning more transparent and therefore easier to evaluate. Furthermore, the Bologna seminar on Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process held in Lisbon April 2002, stated that:

'Learning outcomes are important for recognition, since the basis for recognition procedures is in the process of shifting from quantitative criteria such as the length and type of course studied, to the outcomes reached and competencies obtained during these studies. The principle question asked of the student or the graduate will therefore no longer be "what did you do to obtain your degree?" but rather "what can you do now you have obtained your degree?". This approach is of more relevance to the labour market and is certainly more flexible when taking into account issues of lifelong learning, non-traditional learning, and other forms of non-formal educational experiences.'³⁶

Various tools for the purpose of documenting learning outcomes already exist (EUROPASS, ECTS) and the whole area of recognition, including student mobility, can benefit from the widespread adoption of an outcomes approach that facilitates accurate judgements about qualifications, part-qualifications and periods of learning. Learning outcomes can contribute to the simplification of the recognition process so citizens can move between different higher education systems and get full academic and professional recognition of their qualifications.

3.6 LEARNING OUTCOMES APPROACHES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECTS

The European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) has recently developed rapidly as a credit accumulation and transfer scheme at national level. It has moved from being a credit transfer system for recognising periods of study at foreign institutions to become a putative credit accumulation and transfer system that encompasses all learning and is not solely focused on overseas mobility. Its evolution has been accelerated by the Bologna process and the drive to find effective tools to help converge the structures of European higher education. ECTS now clearly defines ECTS credits as:

'The currency to measure student workload in terms of notional learning time required to achieve specified learning outcomes.'³⁷

This definition is extended to view learning outcomes ' as sets of competences, expressing what the student will know, understand or be able to do after completion of a process of learning'. This new approach of using credits to quantify the outcomes of learning will have profound effects when implemented across Europe. It will involve those using the ECTS framework in casting all their modules in terms of learning outcomes and notional learning time. It is also likely that ECTS will adopt levels and level indicators in the near future. This enhancement together with the other modifications is likely to impact on national higher education systems that already use ECTS as the basis of their own domestic credit accumulation framework. These reforms will need to fit with the creation of new national qualifications frameworks and the overarching European (credit?) qualifications framework.

ECTS is also evolving into a system able to encompass lifelong learning that will include Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as well as formal, non-formal and informal learning based on learning outcomes linked to techniques for the Accreditation of Prior Experiential learning (APEL). The European Commission Director General for Education recently announced plans to develop a credit based integrated system for lifelong learning, centred on ECTS, that links vocational education and training and higher education. ³⁸ In his speech he noted that ' This means at higher education level a shift in perspective from providers to learning outcomes and competences is essential.' The Commission is clearly linking the Copenhagen process for vocational education and training with the Bologna process for higher education.

3.7 LEARNING OUTCOMES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE DEVELOPMENTS

The ministerial meeting in Berlin identified quality assurance at ' the heart of the setting up of a European Higher Education Area' were committed ' to supporting further development of quality assurance at institutional, national and European level.' They also sought by 2005: ' 'evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external review...'

3.7.1 European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)

The European Network for Quality Assurance (ENQA) plus other bodies was tasked to report on this matter. There is evidence that in terms of quality assurance ENQA is moving from an input to an output focus prompted by the clarity and transparency it produces. The ENQA Steering Committee regards benchmarking as one of the increasingly relevant evaluation methods. ³⁹ Traditional approaches are proving less useful in the global world inhabited by new providers and forms of (transnational and borderless) education. External reference points, based on learning outcomes, in conjunction with national qualifications frameworks can provide a robust basis on which effective standards can be maintained and applied to new providers.

3.7.2 Transnational European Evaluation Project 2002-2003 (TEEP)

The Bologna Declaration was the major motivation for setting up the Transnational European Evaluation Project (TEEP), 2002-2003. This project was coordinated through the European Network of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) with the participation of three national/regional quality assurance agencies and the SOCRATES Thematic Networks of the three disciplines, History, Physics and Veterinary Science. It relates directly to any discussion of learning outcomes as it seeks to develop a European methodology for the use of common criteria and quality assurance at European level. In so doing it employs the notions of learning outcomes and competences. The project encompassed five institutions in each of three disciplines and sought to cover as wide a range of national and European contexts as possible. The project included both academic and professional disciplines through its selection of History, Physics and Veterinary Sciences. The project drew directly on the findings developed by the Tuning project that defined competences. The main objectives of TEEP were to:

• Develop further a method for trans-national external evaluation, building on experiences, such as the Tuning project and the BA-MA descriptors developed through the Joint Quality Initiative, using common criteria on the basis of an evaluation process in three different discipline fields.
• Identify possible obstacles, which derive from trans-national evaluation and indicate strategies that might be used to overcome them.
• Contribute to more visibility, transparency and compatibility in European higher education.

TEEP reported some difficulties understanding and interpreting the Tuning criteria with regard to articulating competences and learning outcomes. There were also problems because some programmes had not developed and implemented aspects of quality assurance covered by the TEEP criteria. It was found that staff found it easier to relate to subject-specific competences than (the too numerous) generic ones. The TEEP methodological report noted the potential and importance of compatible approaches to quality assurance within a transnational framework. ⁴⁰ The lesson to be learnt from this experience is perhaps the need for more common understanding of learning outcomes and competences to be related to national, as well as internationally accepted, threshold standards.

3.8 LEARNING OUTCOMES AND THE OVER-ARCHING EUROPEAN QUALIFICATIONS

FRAMEWORK

There is an obvious and fundamental line between the development of new style national qualifications frameworks, the overarching European qualifications framework (EQF) and learning outcomes. The Berlin Communiqué's call for these was based on the realisation that a unifying structure and approach was required to establish compatibility between different national systems of higher education. The Berlin Communiqué encouraged national qualifications frameworks to ' seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, competences andprofile.' This outcomes-focused approach has profound implications.

In parallel with higher education developments there is much activity by the European Commission to introduce credit transfer schemes for VET known as ECVET. Furthermore, the borderlines between VET and higher education are becoming increasingly blurred as more common tools and approaches are adopted. The creation of an overarching EQF for higher education is designed to facilitate the connections between national qualifications frameworks and thereby establish real transparency, leading to the creation of what has been described as a 'zone of mutual trust'. It is likely that, in time there will emerge, a true pan-European lifelong learning system that encompasses all sectors, levels and types of learning. This will require the adoption of common methodological tools and approaches to describe learning. One element of any such system would need to be the use of learning outcomes.

Several outcomes-based national qualifications frameworks exist (Ireland, Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, New Zealand Qualifications Framework, Australian Qualifications Framework, South African National Qualifications Framework, etc.) that use level descriptors based on generic learning outcomes. There are differences between how each system classifies its levels and describes learning. This raises the problem as to how different systems with different level descriptors, and ways to regard learning can be reconciled. The JQI Dublin Descriptors are an attempt to do this and certainly the multitude of new European bachelor degrees would benefit from being cast in terms of learning outcomes to ensure they are true 'stand alone' qualifications. The most transparent way to regard qualifications is to define them as units of recognised outcome of learning. In this way learning outcomes permeate the whole educational structure from the institutional level through to the national and international spheres of activity.

3.9 DIFFERENT LEVELS OF APPLICATION OF LEARNING OUTCOMES:

3.9.1 Institutional/local level - curriculum implications, teaching, learning and assessment

At the institutional level learning outcomes can be used to express learning at the level of the unit or module. In so doing they clarify for the learner what is expected of him or her as well as the skills/competences, understanding and abilities that they will acquire on successful completion of their study. For the teacher, learning outcomes can clarify what exactly the module will deliver and unite this with the appropriate mode of delivery and assessment. The dynamic process marrying outcome and learning with assessment is not simple but it can lead to better programmes of learning. The qualification itself can also be described in broader learning outcomes that link to external reference points leading to better design.

3.9.2 National level - qualifications frameworks and quality assurance

At the national level learning outcomes play a wider role that permeates the ways the national qualifications framework is described and the tools used to describe it. Quality assurance is improved, as explicit guides to standards can emerge based on level descriptors, qualification descriptors and subject benchmark statements.

3.9.3 International level - transparency, recognition and comparability

At the international level learning outcomes play a different role than at the local and national levels. They will be by definition much broader and less precise than national descriptors when used in any European Qualifications framework (as Bologna cycle descriptors). However, providing common approaches are used by different states within their own national systems, learning outcomes open up the possibility of real transparency, mobility and fair recognition on a scale impossible in the past.

« Previous | Contents | Next »