Aspects to be considered to integrate the learning outcomes approach into university curricular design
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22458/ie.v23i34.3474Keywords:
Learning, Higher Education, Assessment, Curriculum, Taxonomy, EducationAbstract
The purpose of this article is to present the findings of the research conducted to identify important aspects that should be considered when using the learning outcomes approach in the university curriculum. The research design was qualitative and exploratory, since it was the first approach to the topic. The method used was literature review and interviews with experts in the field. Throughout the article, topics related with this approach such as writing, coherence of learning outcomes in relation to curricular components, use of taxonomies for the classification of knowledge levels, curricular mapping, benefits and challenges are addressed. As main results, it is found that the approach is known at both national and international level and that there are educational proposals that already have it, specifically, the profile, methodology and evaluation. However, at the level of curricular realization in subjects or courses, the efforts are isolated and there is a lack of further treatment of the topic. On the other hand, it is evident that it is essential to have a taxonomy for the writing of learning outcomes, being Bloom's, revised Bloom's and SOLO the most used.
References
Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación - ANECA. (s.f.). Guía de apoyo para la redacción, puesta en práctica y evaluación de los resultados de aprendizaje. Madrid. Descargado de http://www.aneca.es/content/download/12765/158329/file/learningoutcomesv02.pdf
Alfauzan, A. H, & Tarchouna, N. (2017). The Role of an Aligned Curriculum Design in the Achievement of Learning Outcomes. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 4(3), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2017.43.81.91
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Descargado de: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson Education.
Australian qualifications framework. (2013). Australian Qualifications Framework Council (Inf. Téc.). Descargado de https://www.aqf.edu.au/sites/aqf/files/aqf-2nd-edition-january-2013.pdf
Bloom, B. s., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I CognitiveDomain. Longmans, Green and Co Ltd.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5-22. Recuperado de www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-1/5-22
Biggs, J. B., Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.
Biggs, J., y Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Bohlinger, S. (2008). Las competencias: elemento básico del Marco Europeo de cualificaciones. Revista Europea de Formación Profesional, 42/43, 103–120. Descargado de https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/2556384.pdf
Bolaños, G.; Molina, Z. (1997). Introducción al currículo. San José, Costa Rica: EUNED.
Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks. (2005). A framework for qualifications of the European higher education area (Inf. Téc.). Copenhagen.
Brabrand, C.; Dahl, B. (2009a). Using taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, (59), 531-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9210-4
Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2007b). Constructive alignment and the SOLO taxonomy: a comparative study of university competences in computer science vs. Mathematics. Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research Koli Calling, vol. 88, 3–17, Parque Nacional Koli, Finlandia. Descargdo de http://itu.dk/people/brabrand/koli-2007-keynote.pdf
Camacho Pereira, C., Medina Molina, C. (2012). La aprobación del marco español de cualificaciones para la educación superior y la empleabilidad del alumnado universitario. Revista REJIE: Revista Jurídica de Investigación e Innovación Educativa, 5, 64–86. Descargado de https://dialnet.unirioja.es/revista/21404/A/2012
CEDEFOP. (2017).Defining, writing and applying learning outcomes: a European handbook. (Inf. Téc.). https://doi.org/10.2801/566770
Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional Alignment: Searching for a Magic Bullet. Educational Researcher, 16(8), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X016008016
Consejo Superior Universitario Centroamericano. (2018). Marco de cualificaciones para la educación superior centroamericana (MCESCA): resultados de aprendizaje esperados para los niveles técnico superior universitario, bachillerato universitario, licenciatura, maestría y doctorado. (Inf. Téc.). Guatemala. Descargado de http://www.csuca.org/docs-csuca/libros/Marco%20de%20cualificaciones%20para%20la%20educacion.pdf
Coll, C. (1997). Psicología y currículum: Una aproximación psicopedagógica a la elaboración del currículum. México: Ed Paidós Mexicana.
Comisión Europea. (2009). El Marco Europeo de Cualificaciones para el aprendizaje permanente (EQF-MEC). Educación y Cultura, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2766/14724
Dai, H. N., Wei, W., Wang, H., & Wong, T. L. (2017). Impact of outcome-based education on software engineering teaching: A case study. [Ponencia]. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering, Hong Kong, China. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2017.8252344
Díaz Barriga, F., Lule, M., Pacheco, D., Saad, E., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2004). Metodología de diseño curricular para educación superior. México: Trillas.
Driscoll, A., Wood. S. (2007). Developing outcomes-based assessment for learner-centered education. Virginia, United States of America: Stylus Publishing LLC.
Fry, H.; Ketteridge, S.; S. Marshall. (2000). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Gardner Archambault, S., & Masunaga, J. (2015). Curriculum Mapping as a Strategic Planning Tool. Journal of Library Administration, 55(6), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1054770
Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical teacher, 23(2), 123-137.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C. & Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la investigación (5ta.Ed). México: McGraw-Hill interamericana.
Jenert, T. (2014). Implementing Outcome-Oriented Study Programmes at University: The Challenge of Academic Culture. Zeitschrift Für Hochschulentwicklung, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-9-02/02
Kennedy, D. (2006). Redactar y utilizar resultados de aprendizaje. Un manual práctico. (Inf. Téc.). Cork, University College Cork. Descargado de: https://cora.ucc.ie/handle/10468/1613
Kennedy, D., y McCarthy, M. (2016). Learning Outcomes in the ECTS Users’ Guide 2015 Some Areas of Concern. Journal of the European Higher Education Area, 3.
Kopera-Frye, K., Mahaffy, J., & Svare, G. M. (2008). The map to curriculum alignment and improvement. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 1, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v1i0.3171
Linuesa, M. (2010). Diseñar el currículum. Prever y representar la acción. En: Sacristán, J. G. Saberes e incertidumbres sobre el currículum (compilador). Madrid: Morata.
Ming, W.; Osisek, P.; Starnes, B. (2005). Using the revised Bloom’s taxonomy in the clinical laboratory: thinking skills involved in diagnostic reasoning. Nurse Educator, 30 (3):117-22.
Molina, Z. (1997). Planeamiento didáctico. Fundamentos, principios, estrategias y procedimientos para su desarrollo. San José, Costa Rica: EUNED.
Posner, J. (2007). Análisis del currículo. México: McGraw-Hill Interamericana.
Rawle, F., Bowen, T., Murck, B., & Hong, R. (2017). Curriculum mapping across the disciplines: differences, approaches, and strategies. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 75-88. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4765
Tristán, A., Molgado, D. (sf). Compendio de taxonomías. Clasificaciones para los aprendizajes de los dominios educativos. México: Instituto de Evaluación e Ingeniería Avanzada, S.C.
Universidad Estatal a Distancia. (2016). Guía para el diseño o rediseño curricular de asignaturas. San José, Costa Rica: Material mimeografiado.
Veltri, N. F., Webb, H. W., Matveev, A. G., & Zapatero, E. G. (2011). Curriculum Mapping as a Tool for Continuous Improvement of IS Curriculum. Journal of Information Systems Education, 22(1), 31-42. Descargado de http://jise.org/volume22/
Wijngaards-de Meij, L. & Merx, S. (2018). Improving curriculum alignment and achieving learning goals by making the curriculum visible. International Journal for Academic Development, 23:3, 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1462187
