Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shaping Perceptions of a Policy Instrument: The Political–Administrative Formation of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education in Norway and England

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the most significant European higher education reform initiatives of the last decade is the introduction of a European Qualification Framework (EQF) emphasizing Learning Outcomes (LOs) in higher education. The EQF is offered as a reform to contribute to increased transparency and mobility, and also implies a certain degree of standardization and comparability as to how these initiatives are implemented in European countries. The current article considers these changes in light of institutional perspectives that highlight how common HE reforms, in practice, often vary considerably. It investigates how factors of national policy-making contexts, reform traditions and broader reform agendas contribute to variations in contemporary interpretations and applications of LOs, here in the cases of Norwegian and English HE. It argues that (1) the characteristics of English and Norwegian higher education provided contexts where the perceptions of LOs evolved in very different ways, (2) the different political–administrative structures in the two countries were linked to different governance logics at the national level and institutional levels, and (3) despite these variations, some common mechanisms driving reform can be identified, in the role of intermediary and quality assurance bodies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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. Presented at the United Kingdom Bologna Seminar, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland’. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Seminars/040620LEARNING_OUTCOMES-Adams.pdf.

  • Adam, S. (2008) ‘Learning outcomes current development s in Europe: update on the issues and applications of learning outcomes associated with the Bologna process’. http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Seminars/Edinburgh_Feb08_Adams.pdf.

  • Adelman, C. (2009) ‘The Bologna Process for U.S. Eyes: Re-learning Higher Education in the Age of Convergence, Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy’. www.ihep.org/Research/GlobalPerformance.cfm.

  • Bagchus, R. (1998) ‘The trade-off between appropriateness and fit of policy’, in P.B. Guy and F. Van Nispen (eds.) Public Policy Instruments. Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration, Edward Elgar: Cheltenhan, pp. 46–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzelay, M. and Gallego, R. (2006) ‘From “New Institutionalism” to “Institutional processualism”: advancing knowledge about public management policy change’, Governance 19(4): 531–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezes, P. (2010) ‘Path-Dependent and Path-Breaking Changes in the French Administrative System: The Weight of Legacy Explanations’, in M. Painter and B.G. Peters (eds). Tradition and Public Administration, Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke, pp. 158–172.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J (1996) ‘Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment’ Higher Education, 32(3): 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J (2012) ‘What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning’ Higher Education Research & Development 31(1): 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does’, Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnåvold, J. and Coles, M. (2008) ‘Governing education and training; the case of qualifications frameworks’, European journal of vocational training, 42/43(1): 203–235.

  • Bleiklie, I. (2009) ‘Norway as Higher Education Policy Maker: From Tortoise to Eager Beaver?’, in C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie (eds.) University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 127–152.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. and Michelsen, S. (2012) ‘Comparing higher education policies in Europe: structures and outcomes in eight countries,’ Higher Education 65(1): 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., Lepori, B. and Musselin, C. (2011) ‘New Public Management, Network Governance and the university as a changing professional organization’, in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds.) Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. and Frølich, N. (2014) ‘Styring, organisering og ledelse i høyere utdanningspolitikk’, in N. Frølich, E. Hovdhaugen, and L. Terum, L. (eds.) Kvalitet, kapasitet og relevans. Utviklingstrekk i norsk høyere utdanning. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 40–57.

  • Brockmann, M., Clarke, L., Méhaut, P., and Winch, C. (2008) ‘Competence-based vocational education and training (VET): the cases of England and France in a European perspective’, Vocations and Learning 1(3): 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., and Olsen, J.P. (1993) The reforming organization, London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2011) ‘The new English quality assurance régime’, Quality in Higher Education 17(2): 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, M-H. and Gornitzka, Å. (eds.) (2014) ‘Building the Knowledge Economy in Europe’, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2003) ‘Administrative reform policy: the challenges of turning symbols into practice’, Public Organization Review 3(1): 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2011) ‘Beyond NPM? Some Development Features’, T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds.) New Public Management, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 391–404.

  • de Bruin, H.A. and Hufen, H.A.M. (1998) ‘The Tradition Approach to Policy Instruments’, in B. Guy Peters and F.K.M. van Nispen (eds.) Public Policy Instruments. Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp. 11–32.

  • European Union (2011) Using learning outcomes, European Qualifications Framework Series: Note 4. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelonglearning-policy/doc/eqf/note4_en.pdf.

  • Foss Hansen, H (2011) ‘NPM in Scandinavia’, in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds.) New Public Management, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frølich, N. and Stensaker, B. (2012) ‘University Strategizing: The Role of Evaluation as a Sensemaking Tool’, in B. Stensaker, J. Välimaa and C.S. Sarrico (eds.) Managing Reform in Universities. The Dynamics of Culture, Identity and Organizational Change, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 63–80.

  • Frølich N, Hovdhaugen E. and Terum, L. (2014) Kvalitet, kapasitet og relevans. Utviklingstrekk i norsk høyere utdanning, Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellert, C. (1993) ‘Structures and Functional Differentiation-Remarks on Changing paradigms of Tertiary Education in Europe’ in C. Gellert (ed.). Higher Education in Europe. Jessica Kingsley: London, pp. 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, Å., and Olsen, J.P. (2006) ‘Europeiske endringsprosesser og høyere utdanningsinstitusjoner’, Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 2: 259–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handal, G., Hofgaard Lycke, K., Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., Skodvin, A., and Dyrdal Solbrekke, T. (2014) ‘The role of academic developers in transforming Bologna regulations to a national and institutional context’, International Journal for Academic Development 19(1): 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgøy, I. and Homme, A. (2013) ‘Path-dependent implementation of the European Qualifications Framework in Education. A Comparison of Norway, Germany and England’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 17(2): 124–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovdhaugen, E. (2012) Leaving early: Individual, institutional and system perspectives on why Norwegian students leave their higher education institution before degree completion. PhD-dissertation, Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo.

  • Howlett, M. (1991) ‘Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation’, Policy Studies Journal 19(2): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W.J. (2011) ‘Public Management Reform in Continental Europe: National Distinctiveness’. T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds.). New Public Management, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 97–112.

  • Knill, C. (1998) ‘European policies: the impact of national administrative traditions,’ Journal of Public Policy 18(1):1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I. and Henkel, M. (eds.) (2006) Transforming Higher Education: A Comparative Study, (2nd ed.) Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvilhaugsvik, H. (2015) ‘Pedagogikk, politikk og styring. ‘Eit komparativt casestudium av læringsutbytte i norsk høgare utdanning. Master thesis Department of administration and organization theory, University of Bergen.

  • Lassnigg, L. (2012) ‘Lost in translation: learning outcomes and the governance of education’. Journal of Education and Work 25(3): 299–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen Nyhagen, G. (2015) ‘Between slow and comprehensive reformers: comparing government’s funding policies of Universities in three European countries’, International Journal of Public Administration 38(8): 533–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2005) ‘European academic labor markets in transition’, Higher Education 49(1–2): 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NOKUT (2015) Kartlegging av læringsutbyttebeskrivelser. Evaluering av læringsutbytte-beskrivelser i statsvitenskap, Oslo: NOKUT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nusche, D. (2008) ‘Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: a comparative review of selected practices’, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 15, Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/244257272573

  • Painter, M. and Peters, B.G. (2010a) ‘The analysis of administrative traditions‘, in M. Painter and B.G. Peters (eds.) Tradition and Public Administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M. and Peters, B.G. (2010b) ‘Administrative traditions in comparative perspective: families, groups and hybrids’, in M. Painter and B.G. Peters (eds.) Tradition and Public Administration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 19–30.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I. and Ferlie, E. (2009) University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. (2000) ‘The unbearable lightness of skill: the changing meaning of skill in UK policy discourses and some implications for education and training’ Journal of Education Policy 15(3): 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. Guy (2008) ‘The Napoleonic tradition’, The International Journal of Public Sector Management 21(2): 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B.G. and van Nispen, F.K.M. (1998) Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pliska, A.M. and McQuaide, J. (1994) ‘Pennsylvania’s battle for student learning outcomes’, Educational Leadership 51(1): 66–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004) Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis, (2nd edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Proli, D. and Dondi, C. (2011) Analysis of learning outcomes approach implementation in European higher education, Retrieved from http://empleo.ugr.es/unilo/documentos/UNILO_ANALYSIS_OF_LOs_IMPLEMENTATION_with_annex.pdf.

  • Prøitz, T.S. (2015) ‘Learning outcomes as a key concept in policy documents throughout policy changes,’ Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 59(3): 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • QAA (2012) UK quality code for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Assuring StandardsAnd Quality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx

  • Schneider, A., and Ingram, H. (1990) ‘Behavioral assumptions of policy tools’, The Journal of Politics 52(2): 510–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stensaker, B. and Sweetman, R. (2014) ‘Impact of Assessment Initiatives on Quality Assurance’, in Coates, H. (ed.) Higher education learning outcomes assessment. International perspectives, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 237–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, K. (2014) Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

  • Thoenig, J.-C. (2003) ‘Institutional Theories and Public Institutions: Traditions and appropriateness’, in G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds.) Handbook on Public Administration, London: Sage, pp. 127–148.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vedung, E. (1997) Public Policy and Program Evaluation, Transaction Publishers: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Roness, P.G., Verschure, B., Rubecksen K., and NacCarhaigh, M. (2010) Autonomy and Control in State Agencies, Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Washer, P. (2007) ‘Revisiting key skills: a practical framework for higher education’, Quality in Higher Education 13(1): 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, P. (2002) ‘The role and integration of learning outcomes into the educational process.’ Active Learning in Higher Education 3(3): 205–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, A. (2003) Does education matter? Myths about education and economic growth, New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yesilkagit, K. (2010) ‘The Future of Administrative Tradition’, in M. Painter and B.G. Peters (eds.) Administrative Traditions: Inheritances and Transplants in Comparative Perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 145–155.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Svein Michelsen & Ivar Bleiklie

  2. Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Rachel Sweetman & Bjørn Stensaker

Authors
  1. Svein Michelsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Sweetman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bjørn Stensaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ivar Bleiklie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svein Michelsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michelsen, S., Sweetman, R., Stensaker, B. et al. Shaping Perceptions of a Policy Instrument: The Political–Administrative Formation of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education in Norway and England. High Educ Policy 29, 399–417 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0009-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0009-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation