‘Lost in translation’: learning outcomes and the governance of education

Abstract

This paper gives a critical assessment of the relationship between learning outcomes and the governance of education and training systems. Learning outcomes are defined as an instrument that might work at different levels with different meanings and different results: at the level of education and training practice, they might obtain pedagogical results, at the level of policy-making they might contribute to the governance of education and training. However, the ways in which governance impacts on pedagogy is called into question; in particular the argument challenges the assumption of a straightforward and successful ‘top-down’-relationship between governance and pedagogy. First, an assessment is undertaken into supportive and critical expectations about learning outcomes: of what they should achieve and of what is deemed necessary to make them work on the one hand and of detrimental effects they might have, on the other. Second, a framework for the analysis of the impact of learning outcomes is proposed; this brings some approaches from the literature together in a systematic fashion and is also used to interpret some developments of the use of learning outcomes in Austria and in other countries. As a result, we conclude that most expectations of the learning outcomes approach are overstated, as are critiques. Evidence shows that there might be pedagogical benefits of learning outcomes if they are properly implemented; however, they appear too weak as an instrument to bring about the desired results as a governance device. They might successfully change policies, however, without having the desired impact on education and training practice.

Keywords:

• learning outcomes
• pedagogy
• policy
• governance

Notes

1. The time pressure was set already at the stage of preparing the proposal of the EQF, leading to an ‘overkill’ between different projects groups: ‘To a certain extent, this proposal overtook the work done hitherto on the transfer of credits: instead of completing them […] it preceded them […]. Moreover, the group rejected the last-minute proposal for adoption made just before the presentation to the group of Directors-General for vocational training.’ (Bouder et al. 2009, 102). Concerning the overall process the authors compare the process in higher education with VET and ask: ‘What about schools and vocational education? Are we not asking them to do in less than 10 years (by 2010) what higher education took nearly 50 years to achieve?’ (Bouder et al. 105).

2. Taking the translation metaphor literally, it would be an interesting solution to abandon the words that are difficult to translate from the respective languages. The overall business would become much easier!

3. The directives as opposed to the EQF not only use input-related criteria but are also based on a five levels qualifications framework that is legally binding for the EU as well as for member states (Bouder et al. 2009, Section 2.1). A successive initiative has been the ‘Transparency Forum’ (1998), leading to purely describing activities as the European Curriculum Vitae, the certificate and diploma supplements, and subsequently the Europass (2004). These approaches include the listing of ‘the “elements of competence” acquired through the training followed’, which ‘act as link with the job by listing the sectors of activity or types of job accessible to the holder of the document’ (Ibid., 100). Bouder et al. (2009, 102) see this descriptive approach that has been included as a priority in the Copenhagen process as contradicting to the normative approach of the qualifications framework, which has been also included as another priority.

4. LSAs: Programme for international students assessment, trends in international mathematics and science study, Progress in international reading literacy study, etc.

5. The ‘employment relation’ or ‘employment relationship’ is a central topic of the study of industrial relations since decades. Key issues are the power and exchange relations between the employees and the employers in which qualifications and their use, and the involved reciprocal information problems play an important role (see, e.g. Edwards 1995, 2003; Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2004; Budd and Bhave 2010).

6. This distinction of supply sided qualifications and demand-sided qualifications might be a fundamental requirement of flexibility of the use and application of qualifications, allowing for the processes at the labour market to actually provide choice among qualifications. The opposite, and the most marked identity of supply and demand-sided qualifications would be an established right for being employed on basis of the demand-sided qualification only. This identity had been established partly in the US industrial relations, and has been a major source of inflexibility – the occupations established by the apprenticeship system are by contrast rather supply sided qualifications (Piore 1986; Streeck forthcoming).

7. Level 8: ‘Demonstrate substantial authority, innovation, autonomy […]’; level 7: ‘Manage and transform work or study contexts that are complex, unpredictable and require new strategic approaches. Take responsibility […] for reviewing the strategic performance of teams’; level 6: ‘[…] taking responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work or study contexts. Take responsibility for managing professional development of individuals or groups’ (European Communities 2008).

8. Cf. the pioneering studies into professional competence by Eraut (1994, 2004) and his colleagues have shown. More recently the study into work-related learning in the UK-based teaching and learning research project underlines the existing variety in learning processes and outcomes (Unwin et al. 2007). Even a step further go the recent arguments about the ‘cultural economy’ that reject the instrumental views about knowledge included in the reasoning about learning outcomes (cf. Guile 2010).