Learning Outcomes in Scandinavian Education through the Lens of Elliot Eisner

ABSTRACT

Discursively learning outcomes have been embedded within an education-policy context characterised by a shift from teaching to learning. In the dominant education policy discourse, learning outcomes have come to play an important role in education whose emphasis is more on product than process, which by its critics have been characterised as scientific management. Calls have been made to reconsider alternative interpretations of learning outcomes and a renewal of older perspectives on learning outcomes such as in Eisner’s works. The article examines the concept of learning outcomes, as interpreted in education policy, and discusses it within Eisner’s framing of teaching and learning. Analysing policy developments and the introduction of learning outcomes in two Scandinavian countries, we ask what is taken for granted in the interpretation of learning outcomes. The analysis contributes to a widened narrative on what education could be about by illuminating alternative ways of interpreting and conceptualising learning outcomes in education.

KEYWORDS:

• Document analysis
• education policy
• Eisner
• learning outcomes
• Scandinavian education

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Eisner defines learning outcomes as “essentially what one ends up with, intended or not, after some form of engagement” (1979, p. 101).

2 EMIL Project, Report to the Parliament no. 33 (1991–92), Report to the Parliament no. 47 (1995–96). Resolution by the Storting no. 96 (1996–97), The Moe Report 1997, Report to the Storting no. 28 (1998–99).

3 National budget (Budsjett-innst). S. nr. 12 (2002–2003), Report to the Parliament (National Budget Supplemental Proposition Concerning the Amendment of National Tests) St.prp nr. 1 Tillegg nr. 3 (2002–2003), Om tilleggsforslag i statsbudsjettet for 2003 under kapitler administrert av Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet, Rammeverk for nasjonale prøver (2010).

4 Report to Parliament no. 30 (2003–2004): “Knowledge Promotion Reform”. Ministry of Education, and Official Norwegian Report (2002).

5 Government Bill, 1990/91:18.

6 Government Bill, 1991/92:95.

7 Ministry of Education and Research. (2016).

8 This was the first in-depth analysis of the concept of knowledge performed since the 1962 Swedish comprehensive school reform. In Sweden, school actors talked about this differentiated knowledge conception in terms of fact (fakta), understanding (förståelse), skill (färdighet) and familiarity (förtrogenhet). Carlgren, who was part of the committee working with this differentiated knowledge conception, said that while the first three aspects could all be identified in previous curricula, “familiarity” was a new element in Lpo94 and in line with what she described as a “practice turn” in education. The differentiated knowledge conception was launched as a “non-hierarchical knowledge typology” but nonetheless came to be used in a hierarchical manner by the teachers, who related the different forms of knowledge to different grades, ranging from “fact” as the most basic form to “familiarity” as the most advanced (2012).

9 Report to the Parliament no. 31 (2007-2008), Kvalitet i skolen [Quality in schol], Reprt to the Parliament no. 44 (2008-2009), Utdanningslinja, [The education trajectory], Report to the Parliament no. 20 (2012–2013) På rett vei. [On the right path].

10 In its guidance on how to use the new grading scale, the Swedish National Agency for Education emphasises that grades should express the extent to which the pupil has met the knowledge requirements stated for each subject and course.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Norges Forskningsråd: [Grant Number 254978/H20].