Advertisement

Learning Outcomes: Core Issues in Higher Education

  • Heinz-Ulrich Schmidt
Chapter

Abstract

Harmonisation in the European Higher Education Area is the main objective of the Bologna Declaration of 1999. One of the most important issues is the paradigm shift from traditional faculty-centered teaching to student-centered teaching and learning by focusing on the intended learning outcomes. Learning outcomes on programme and on module/course level provide a useful guide to inform potential candidates and employers about the general and subject-specific qualifications that a graduate will possess. The internationally agreed European Qualifications Framework for Higher Education assures the same level of study programmes and modules, which must be oriented towards learning outcomes. Learning outcomes therefore have to be assessed. Those assessments are challenging in particular to the teachers, since they have to take care for appropriate formats of assignments and consistency between the learning outcomes, the learning and teaching activities, and assessment procedures (constructive alignment). The contribution contents some international examples of good practice.

Keywords

Bologna Declaration Paradigm shift Learning outcomes European Qualifications Framework of Higher Education Assessments Constructive alignment 

References

  1. Bologna Working Group. (2005). A framework for qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. Bologna Working Group report on qualifications frameworks. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved from http://ecahe.eu/w/images/7/76/A_Framework_for_Qualifications_for_the_European_Higher_Education_Area.pdf.Google Scholar
  2. Bucharest Communiqué. (2012). Making the most of our potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved from https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Bucharest-Communique-20121.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. ECTS. (2015). ECTS users’ guide. Brussels: Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/ects/users-guide/docs/ects-users-guide_en.pdf.Google Scholar
  4. EHEA Ministerial Conference Bucharest. (2012). Bucharest communiqué (Vol. 27, p. 3). Bucharest: EHEA.Google Scholar
  5. FIBAA. (2017). Decision of the FIBAA Accreditation Committee for Programmes. Bonn: FIBAA. Retrieved fromhttp://static.fibaa.org/berichte/progakkred_k2h/B_Ho_Chi_Minh_City_Uni_2589_KB.pdf.Google Scholar
  6. FIBAA. (2018). Decision of the FIBAA Accreditation Committee for Programmes. Bonn: FIBAA. Retrieved from http://static.fibaa.org/berichte/progakkred_k2h/M_Kasachstan_KIMEP_2680_KB.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Joint Quality Initiative. (2004). Shared ‘Dublin’ descriptors for short cycle, first cycle, second cycle and third cycle awards. In Draft 1, working document on JQI meeting in Dublin. Retrieved from https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/bologna/dublin_descriptors.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes. A practical guide (p. 25). Cork: University College Cork.Google Scholar
  9. KIMEP. (2017). KIMEP University Executive Education Center, Self-assessment report. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  10. Kopf, M., Leipold, J., & Seidl, T. (2010). Kompetenzen in Lehrveranstaltungen und Prüfungen. Mainzer Beiträge zur Hochschulentwicklung, Bd, 16. Mainz: Zentrum für Qualitätssicherung und –Entwicklung.Google Scholar
  11. Wildt, J. (2009). Perspektive Studienqualität: Themen und Forschungsergebnisse der HIS-Fachtagung “Studienqualität”. HIS, Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (Hg.), BielefeldGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinz-Ulrich Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.Foundation for International Business Administration Accreditation (FIBAA)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations