Curriculum planning with 'learning outcomes': a theoretical analysis
| dc.contributor.author | Kemp, Brian | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2007-04-26T11:21:57Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2007-04-26T11:21:57Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1999-06 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2007-04-26 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1363-6839 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2436/11377 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The use of learning outcomes for curriculum planning is widely advocated in higher education, it is supported by an imposing set of claims, and it has official sanction, for example from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). In opposition, there are fierce criticisms, mainly on theoretical grounds. The debate between opposing parties can be sterile, unless conducted in relation to an actual application of learning outcomes. The intention here is to examine such a scheme. This paper considers theoretical arguments in relation to the scheme. There will be a subsequent paper which looks at empirical evidence, and a final paper will offer an alternative framework for planning curriculum content. The motive for this project is the author’s belief that there is much in ‘learning outcomes’ that is inimical to any warranted conception of higher education. | |
| dc.format.extent | 117175 bytes | |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | University of Wolverhampton | |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Working paper | |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | WP004/99 | |
| dc.relation.url | http://www.wlv.ac.uk/PDF/uwbs_WP004-99%20Kemp.pdf | |
| dc.subject | Curriculum planning | |
| dc.subject | Learning outcomes | |
| dc.subject | Higher education | |
| dc.title | Curriculum planning with 'learning outcomes': a theoretical analysis | |
| dc.type | Working paper | |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-08-21T09:45:42Z | |
| html.description.abstract | The use of learning outcomes for curriculum planning is widely advocated in higher education, it is supported by an imposing set of claims, and it has official sanction, for example from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). In opposition, there are fierce criticisms, mainly on theoretical grounds. The debate between opposing parties can be sterile, unless conducted in relation to an actual application of learning outcomes. The intention here is to examine such a scheme. This paper considers theoretical arguments in relation to the scheme. There will be a subsequent paper which looks at empirical evidence, and a final paper will offer an alternative framework for planning curriculum content. The motive for this project is the author’s belief that there is much in ‘learning outcomes’ that is inimical to any warranted conception of higher education. |
