The Shift To Learning Outcomes

Theshiftto
This booklet draws on the ongoing shift to learning outcomes
??-00-00-000-EN-C
in European education and training policies and practices. It fo-
cuses on the conceptual basis and developmental main trends
of the learning outcomes approach in the 32 European countries
participating in the Education and training 2010 programme.
The text which is based on the comparative study conduct-
ed by Cedefop in 2007, covers developments in general edu-
learning
cation, vocational education and training, and higher educa-
tion. The lines of research are: (a) conceptual clarification of
learning outcomes; (b) learning outcomes as an aspect of pol-
icy reform at national, local and institutional levels; (c) the
learning outcomes as a component of modernising education
and training systems.
outcomes
Conceptual, political
and practical developments in Europe
ISBN 978-92-79-06432-6
The shift to learning outcomes
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008

The European Centre for the Development
of Vocational Training (Cedefop) is the European Union’s
reference centre for vocational education and training.
We provide information on and analyses of vocational
education and training systems, policies, research and practice.
Cedefop was established in 1975
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75.
Europe 123, GR-570 01 Thessaloniki (Pylea)

PO Box 22427, GR-551 02 Thessaloniki
Tel. (+30) 23 10 49 01 11, Fax (+30) 23 10 49 00 20
E-mail: [email protected]
www.cedefop.europa.eu
A great deal of additional information on the European Union

is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008
ISBN
© European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2008

All rights reserved.
Designed by Colibri Ltd. - Greece

Printed in Italy
Foreword
European countries are increasingly referring to learning outcomes when set-

ting overall objectives for their education and training systems and when de-
fining and describing qualifications. Instead of focusing on input factors such
as the duration, location and particular pedagogical method underpinning a
qualification, attention is directed towards what a learner knows and is able to
do at the end of a learning process. Considerable experience has been gained
in European countries and more countries are setting up national qualifica-
tions frameworks based on learning outcomes, with other countries consider-
ing moving in this direction. Launching a European qualifications framework
(EQF) and a European credit system for vocational education and training
(ECVET) – both based on learning outcomes – has increased attention on
learning outcomes which may be seen as catalysts for national reforms. Ex-
pectations of the learning outcomes approach are thus higher than ever be-
fore and many see this shift as an opportunity to tailor education and training
to individual needs, improve links to the labour market and improve the way
non‑formally and informally acquired learning outcomes are recognised.
While work on learning outcomes has attracted particular attention in recent
years, the theme is not new to Cedefop. Our work on transparency of qualifica-
tions and competences during the 1990s illustrated the importance of the
learning outcomes perspective and its relevance for education and training
policies and practices. The 2003‑04 Cedefop study on reference levels for vo-
cational education and training provided the basis for the EQF and use of learn-
ing outcomes as a basis for this framework. The work of Cedefop on validation
of non‑formal and informal learning during the past 10 to 15 years has contrib-
uted to the spread and implementation of methods and institutions across Eu-
rope; all relying on and promoting the concept of learning outcomes.
This booklet, which is an extract of an extensive comparative study con-
ducted by Cedefop in 2007 (the complete study to be published), analyses the
influence of the learning approach in 32 European countries. We believe this
text will prove helpful for policy-makers, researchers, social partners and
practitioners working in this field.
Aviana Bulgarelli
Director of Cedefop
Acknowledgments
This booklet is the result of a team effort and reflects the contributions of all
those working on the project, in particular from:
• Cedefop, Jens Bjornavold and Loukas Zahilas for drafting the booklet and
Mara Brugia for overall supervision of the publication;
• the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), Tom Leney, Jean Gor-
don and Stephen Adam who gathered and analysed the material for the
comprehensive comparative study conducted by Cedefop in 2007, and on
which this booklet builds.
Finally, thanks are due to Christine Nychas from Cedefop for her technical
support in preparing this publication.
Table of contents
Foreword 1
Acknowledgments 3
Executive summary 9
1. Introduction 13
2. The learning outcomes concept 15

2.1. Gradual emergence of a learning outcomes perspective 16
2.2. Learning outcomes – Opening up towards active learning? 18
2.3. The challenge of describing learning outcomes 20
2.3.1. What ideas lie behind these descriptors? 22
2.3.2. Bloom’s taxonomy 23
2.3.3. Functional analysis 24
2.3.4. The EQF formulation 24
2.3.5. The Tuning project 27
2.3.6. The OECD DeSeCo project - Key ‘competencies’ 28
2.3.7. EU key competences 28
2.3.8. Implications 29
3. Learning outcomes; drivers for change 31

3.1. Learning outcomes in subsectors of education and training 31
3.2. Learning outcomes and assessment 33
3.3. Learning outcomes and lifelong learning 35
3.4. Learning outcomes and stakeholders 37
3.4.1. The crucial role of social partners 38
3.4.2. The role of teachers and trainers 39
3.4.3. The role and interests of learners 40
4. Conclusion 41
Bibliography 43
Internet references 47
01_2008_1027_txt_EN.indd 5 6-05-2008 16:35:59

List of figures
Figures
Figure 1: Some categories used for describing learning outcomes 21
Figure 2: Bloom’s taxonomy of outcomes 23
Figure 3: Main steps for developing outcome‑based VET qualifications in the UK 24
Figure 4: The European qualifications framework 25
Figure 5: The Tuning project generic learning outcomes 27
Figure 6: The eight EU/European key competences 29
Figure 7: Derivation of learning outcomes categorisations 30
01_2008_1027_txt_EN.indd 7 6-05-2008 16:35:59

Executive summary
Cedefop’s forthcoming study on learning outcomes (1) demonstrates the in-

creasing importance of learning outcomes for defining and guiding education,
training and lifelong learning strategies.
In key respects, learning outcomes form part of an innovative approach to
teaching and learning, which some have identified as part of a new learning
paradigm. Learning outcomes are the focus, and provide a key role in organis-
ing systemic aims, curricula, pedagogy, assessment and quality assurance.
Increasing use of learning outcomes is expected to have profound implica-
tions for making systems more learner‑centred, organising institutions, cur-
ricula and for the roles and training of teachers and trainers.
The environment in which learning outcome approaches are becoming
more prominent is the shift in European education and training systems to-
wards lifelong learning strategies. This gives them a pivotal position in redefin-
ing qualifications and VET, general and higher education curricula.
Learning outcomes are best understood as a collection of useful proc-
esses and tools that can be applied in diverse ways in different policy, teach-
ing and learning settings. It follows that there is no single correct or apt way
of approaching them. The term can have a range of connotations and deno-
tations, precisely because it is used in different contexts. The evidence con-
tained in the 2007 Cedefop study strongly suggests the need to be sensitive
to the particular context in which learning outcomes are brought into use.
Notably, learning outcomes are also required to perform multiple functions
in national education and training systems in European countries: recogni-
tion of prior learning, award of credit, quality, learning plans, key compe-
tences for life, credibility for employers as well as modernising the govern-
ance of education and training as systems are reformed to encompass
lifelong learning.
The emphasis is on defining learning outcomes to shape the learner’s ex-
perience, rather than give primacy to the content of the subjects that make up
the curriculum. The identification of clear and apt learning outcomes acts as
an organising principle for good practice in schools. Learning outcomes take
(1) Cedefop, 2008 (forthcoming).

10 The shift to learning outcomes
a prominent place alongside the aims, objectives and ethos of the system or
institution. They have a direct and formative impact on the curriculum and
pedagogy, contributing significantly to what and how people learn, and should
have an impact on how learning is assessed.
Across Europe, the post‑compulsory phase of general education is the
phase that has been least influenced by reforming ideas about learning out-
comes. If they begin to have a formative impact on university curricula and
pedagogies, this may in due course have a consequential effect on the cur-
riculum, pedagogy and assessment in upper secondary general education.
It is to be expected that learning outcomes will have an impact on styles
of assessment. However, evidence gathered for the study suggests that
learning outcomes currently have a limited impact on the ways in which
learning is assessed.
Learning outcomes are prominent in developing national qualification
frameworks (NQFs) in Europe. Development of the latter has to be planned
actively to engage the main stakeholders in a process of ongoing negotiation
and, probably, compromise at different levels in the system. An NQF owned
by an administration and whose use is limited largely to official publications
probably serves little purpose. Here, identification of learning outcomes can
provide the organising factor to make explicit the achievements of a wide
range of learners, irrespective of the types or modes or duration of learning
and training that they engage in.
Growing priority is being given to recognition of informal and non‑formal
learning in many European education and training systems. This is supported
both by increasing use of learning outcomes, and attempts to make qualifica-
tion systems more coherent and more legible.
Policy-makers are necessarily using learning outcomes somewhat differ-
ently at different levels of the conceptualisation and reform process. They now
have to work with a range of stakeholders (social partners, teaching and train-
ing professionals, research communities, learners and the wider community).
While other partners have been recognised as active stakeholders for some
time, learners should now also be an identified stakeholder, as is happening in
some settings. The key actors involved in defining learning outcomes are not
the same for VET, general and higher education.
The main stakeholders in the fields of education and training all have a role
both in forging change and in developing and implementing learning out-
comes. There is a need for strong stakeholder participation in developments
at the system level and developing learning outcomes in relation to national
policy development should be a careful and quite open process, not one
owned exclusively by the administration. Interaction between top‑down and
Executive summary 11
bottom‑up interventions are an important part of the process and identifying

learning outcomes has to be a collaborative effort, if it is to be meaningful.
Learning outcomes are flexible and evolving tools which function within
policy and structural contexts. For them to become an embedded and effec-
tive part of lifelong learning strategies that contribute to the individual’s op-
portunities for learning there is a need for a dynamic interplay between policy
frameworks, institutions and mechanisms in place and the tools developed.
1. Introduction
This booklet addresses the ongoing shift to learning outcomes in European

education and training policies and practices. The current text builds directly
on the comprehensive comparative study (to be published separately) con-
ducted by Cedefop in 2007, covering 32 European countries that participate
in the Education and training 2010 programme.
Interest in learning outcomes has widened from the domain of pedagogy to
include other settings, notably governance of education and training systems.
This main conclusion of the 2007 study was based on extensive research
covering developments in general education, vocational education and train-
ing and higher education. This research took as its point of departure the fol-
lowing three sets of questions:
• conceptual clarification: how can the concept of learning outcomes be
made clearer, particularly when used in conjunction with terms such as
competences and learning inputs? How is the term used in different coun-
tries, cultures and subsystems of education and training?
• learning outcomes as an aspect of policy reform: which policy initiatives
linked to learning outcomes can be identified in European countries and
how do these influence strategies at national, local and institutional levels?
• learning outcomes impacting on practical reform at the levels of institutions
and learners: what is the effect of learning outcome approaches at the mi-
cro level of learners in their institutions – whether schools, workplaces or
another learning situation?
This short extract – focusing on the conceptual basis and main develop-
mental trends – aims to introduce the theme and the challenges facing it.
2. The learning outcomes
concept
In sectors of education and in countries where the term ‘learning outcomes’ is

actually being used, there is a good deal of agreement about how to define the
term. The Tuning project for higher education (González and Wagenaar, 2003)
defines learning outcomes as ‘statements of what a learner is expected to
know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of a process
of learning’. In Canada, and for school education, the British Columbia Ministry
of Education (Adam, 2006) describes learning outcomes as ‘statements of
what students are expected to know and to do at an indicated grade’.
The definition of learning outcomes used in the European qualifications
framework is in common usage and commands widespread acceptance. It is
similar to those cited above, and provides a helping starting point.
EQF defines learning outcomes as statements of what a learner knows, understands

and is able to do on completion of a learning process (European Commission, 2006).
The EQF definition of learning outcomes was arrived at after extensive re-
search and discussion. It is a definition agreed between the governments and
social partners participating in Education and training 2010. Nevertheless,
given the wide variety of systems and contexts covered by the Cedefop study,
this definition was further simplified to allow the term maximum applicability.
Therefore, the following definition was adopted for the study:
Learning outcomes are statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to
do after completion of learning.
However, the simplicity and comprehensiveness begins to unravel as soon

as the complexity of associated terms – in particular competence – and coun-
try usage comes into play.
It is clear the terms learning outcomes and competence are frequently in-
terchanged. The following sections will illustrate how the learning outcomes
concept has gradually emerged, how it is linked to different theories on learn-
ing and how it is captured in different efforts to describe learning outcomes.
This will also illustrate some of the links to and overlaps with the concept of
competence.
2.1. Gradual emergence of a learning outcomes

perspective
At some risk of overgeneralisation, outcome-based approaches started to
have a real impact from the mid‑1980s, when they were introduced as part of
reforms intended to improve the employability of young people and the unem-
ployed, and to improve the labour market relevance of vocational qualifica-
tions. Initial focus was, thus, on VET and the learner was targeted as an indi-
vidual functioning in the labour market and the workplace. One of the tools
introduced was functional analysis of occupations, with learning outcomes
(often called competences) as one of the key elements of the methodology.
This approach was highly developed in the literature of the English‑speaking
world, but was also clearly present in the approaches to functional analysis
used, for example, in Germany and France.
In recent years, as education policy-makers have started to reflect on the
appropriate type of education for living and working in the 21st century, differ-
ent and more varied ways of conceptualising learning outcomes have ap-
peared. One current example is the socle commun in France, where the focus
is primarily on the citizen, and each of the competences is a combination of
essential knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes. The socle commun is to be
acquired gradually from nursery education through to the end of compulsory
schooling, with the intention that each competence should be acquired across
more than one discipline and each discipline should contribute to acquisition
of several competences.
A second approach is observed in Sweden where the overarching curricu-
lum document for compulsory school (seven to 16 year‑olds), preschool and
leisure centres (Skolverket, (2) 2006), defines two main types of goals. These
are: goals to strive towards and goals to be attained. The former determine
the general direction of all work to be undertaken at school; they specify the
qualitative development desired at school, while the latter express the mini-
mum levels pupils should attain when leaving school. Some goals are quite
similar to the competences in the French socle commun, yet others in the
Swedish frame focus differently.
Similar developments are underway in the UK. In Northern Ireland, the cur-
riculum aims to ‘empower young people to achieve their potential and to make
informed and responsible decisions throughout their lives’ (3). In the English
(2) The Swedish National Agency for Education.

(3) For more information on the Northern Ireland curriculum, see: http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/
The learning outcomes concept 17
curriculum there are again basic key competences elements (such as, ‘have
the essential learning skills of literacy, numeracy and information and com-
munication technology’) but the curriculum also aims to enable young people
to become ‘confident individuals who … have a sense of self‑worth and per-
sonal identity, relate well to others and form good relationships, are self‑aware
and deal well with their emotions’.
These are just a few examples of how general education, particularly com-
pulsory education, is integrating the notion of learning outcomes in appropri-
ate ways. However, it seems upper secondary general/academic qualifica-
tions (baccalauréat general, Abitur, etc.) that open entry to university appear
for the most part to be least affected by reforms linked to learning outcomes,
at least at present. Given the work underway in higher education, this may
change in the next few years.
In higher education, the Bologna process is at an early stage of reforms that
embrace learning outcomes. According to the most recent declaration of na-
tional education and training ministers, the purposes of higher education in-
stitutions should include:
‘preparing students for life as active citizens in a democratic society; preparing students
for their future careers and enabling their personal development; creating and maintain‑
ing a broad, advanced knowledge base; and stimulating research and innovation’ (Eu‑
ropean Ministers of Education, 2007).
It is clear from the above that application of the learning outcomes concept
will vary, depending on whether the focus is VET, general or higher education.
To examine how countries are currently using learning outcomes in the evolu-
tion of their education policy, it is best to bear this variety of both focus and
context in mind. Even so, there are common intentions over and above na-
tional differences. International comparisons have an increasingly influential
role in this respect. The international PISA surveys (4) now have substantial
influence in several countries, insofar as PISA tests are intended to assess
how pupils are able to use what they have learned. The impact of this has
been that some countries that had previously been well placed in the results
of input‑based comparisons, found themselves lower down the scale in learn-
ing outcomes assessments. In many cases this has led to reflection, review
and reform. Results of the PISA surveys have had an impact on recent reforms
in Austria, Germany, Luxembourg and Norway.
(4) OECD PISA reports: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32236130_1_1_1_1_1,

00.html (cited 6.3.2008).
2.2. Learning outcomes – Opening up towards

active learning?
Giving priority to learning outcomes is frequently described as indicative of
– and leading to – a new approach to learning and teaching. Thus, in a
paper on applying a changing policy paradigm to VET reforms in develop-
ing countries, Cedefop, Grootings and Nielson (2008, forthcoming) argue
that, ever since development of formal systems of education and training
that provide standardised programmes, the challenge has been to engage
all learners in successful learning. Theory and research offer different un-
derstandings of why, where, what and how people learn – and what moti-
vates them.
Summarising some of the most influential ideas about successful learn-
ing, Cedefop, Grootings and Nielson contrast two differing approaches.
On the one hand traditional (behaviourist and cognitive) approaches (5) as-
sume that:
• learning is basically a steady accumulation of discrete entities of knowl-
edge and skills that can be presented to learners;
• there is one best way of learning;
• learning is essentially an individual activity;
• learning that is non‑transparent or tacit is inferior;
• learning centres on the stable and enduring – facts and proven evidence;
• learning is replicable.
On the other hand, active learning (constructivist) approaches see learning

as a selective process in which people give their own meaning to information,
continuously interacting with their various environments. Thus:
• people build up their own meanings, based on what they already know and
how they see the world around them;
• different people give different interpretations to the same thing, may retain
different aspects and may act differently based on the same information;
• there are many ways through which people can learn without someone else
passing on pieces of expert knowledge;
• learning is a social activity and much learning is tacit (Lave and Wenger,
1991; Wenger, 1999; Schön, 1983);
• learning is dynamic and context–bound and, therefore, good learning de-
pends on meaningful learning environments (Kolb, 1984).
(5) See Driscoll (2000) for a critical evaluation.

Contrasting these approaches to learning, Cedefop, Grootings and Nielson

believe that active learning is justifiably referred to as a new paradigm, and
one that is becoming more and more appropriate to our times. Further:
‘The active learning paradigm stresses the need for new criteria for – and new kinds of
– learning outcomes’ (Cedefop, Grootings and Nielson, 2008, (forthcoming)).
The point is that the cognitive approach tends to emphasise individual ac-
quisition of certain kinds of learning, whilst approaches based on ideas of
active learning tend to emphasise the dynamic role of social relationships and
the situations in which learning takes place. In the research and theory of Lave
and Wenger (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1999), this is summed up by
the importance given to communities of practice. The communities of prac-
tice concept is not a tabulation of outcomes, but is currently enjoying a strong
influence on how learning takes place and, therefore, on outcomes.
Active learning approaches now seem to be seen widely as important
across the European policy debate – whether at national, sectoral or European
levels. Whether they fundamentally change the paradigm or modify its focus
is debatable. Michel describes the current paradigm of school education as
being fundamentally that of agricultural and industrial France at the end of the
19th century, scrupulously following the ‘three unities’ of classical theatre: the
unity of time (the class hour), the unity of place (the classroom) and the unity
of action (the teacher in front of the class) (Michel, 2007) (6). This metaphor is
applicable to most systems in Europe and elsewhere.
For higher education and looking across the spectrum of education and
training in Europe, Adam (2004) observed that approaches to learning out-
comes have achieved high priority in many official documents and confer-
ences across Europe. While convinced that learning outcomes are quite right-
ly at the forefront of educational change, Adam advises care – learning
outcomes have not often been converted into practical application and are
frequently poorly understood.
Adam, like other observers, concludes that most European countries are
probably still using learning outcomes to only a limited extent, and not coher-
ently or holistically. Nevertheless, evidence shows this area of activity is at-
tracting much attention, certainly in policy development and perhaps also in
terms of teaching and learning processes at local level. Higher education has
certainly adopted learning outcomes to express various external reference
points, including levels in the EQF, and to define the cycles (Dublin descrip-
(6) For an exploration of such issues, see also Carneiro et al. 2007.
tors) in the Bologna overarching framework for qualifications of the European

higher education area (EHEA).
2.3. The challenge of describing learning outcomes

The language that governments use at policy level to describe their reforms
helps us understand the extent to which educational systems are orientated
by input, or process, or learning outcomes.
Where countries are using learning outcomes, these are often expressed as
competences. The figure below shows some headline comparisons in how
competences are categorised by different models and different countries. To
place this comparative table in an international framework intrinsically based
on learning outcomes encompassing all forms of learning, we have chosen
the Unesco four pillars of learning. These are:
• learning to know,
• learning to do,
• learning to live together,
• learning to be.
These pillars were first developed in the report to Unesco by the Interna-
tional Commission on Education for the 21st century chaired by Jacques
Delors (Delors, 1998). For the purpose of Cedefop’s study (2008, forthcom-
ing), the four pillars had major advantages over the ISCED framework, be-
cause they cover all types of lifelong and lifewide learning. In the figure that
follows best allocation of the terms used by different schemes into the scheme
developed by Unesco is presented.
From the start, it is clear that countries – as well as academics and devel-
opment projects – define and put ideas of learning outcomes and compe-
tences into practice differently. This is true for countries included in the Eury-
dice network survey, conducted recently (Eurydice, 2008, forthcoming).
Austria and Germany cover learning outcomes as part of Bildungsstand-
ards (educational standards). In Austria, these are competences that learners
are expected to have acquired on completion of a specific grade. In Germany,
learning outcomes are defined more widely, as ‘subject‑related and ‘subject
adjoining’ basic qualifications, which are relevant for further general and vo-
cational training’. Cyprus and the Czech Republic have similar approaches. In
the former, learning outcomes are defined as a series of aims and objectives,
which provide a general indication of the standards of achievement, expected
by students awarded particular grades at the end of each stage of education.
In the latter, key competences are defined for each level or type of education
Figure 1: Some categories used for describing learning outcomes

Country/model Learning Learning Learning Learning
to know to do to live together to be
France Savoir Savoir faire Savoir être
France Connaissances Capacités Attitude Attitude
(socle commun)
Ireland Knowledge Know‑how and Competence
(breadth and skill (range and (context, role,
kind) selectivity) learning to learn
and insight)
Malta (Bloom’s Knowledge Skills Attitudes
taxonomy)
Portugal (secondary Competências Competências Competências Competências
education) cognitivas funcionais sociais sociais
Cyprus Cognitive Affective,
(proficiency) transfer
Tuning project Independent Interpersonal Systemic
EQF Knowledge Skills Competences
EU key competences Knowledge Skills Attitudes
which formulate learning outcomes. In Greece, learning outcomes are cate-

gorised differently. They relate to development of specific skills, such as com-
munication, functional mathematics, teamwork, decision-making or manag-
ing resources. Sweden does not explicitly use ‘learning outcomes’. However,
as already indicated above, its system is clearly goal-orientated (and distin-
guishes between ‘goals to be attained’ and ‘goals to strive towards’).
All of the above signifies that we can make a clear distinction between aims
and objectives, which describe what a system, school or teacher hope to
achieve and learning outcomes, which focus on what a learner knows, under-
stands and can do.
National cultures, education traditions and policy decision-making all contrib-
ute to a picture that both has common elements, and various approaches. This
also suggests there can be tension between setting many tightly defined targets
in the form of learning outcomes, and taking a broader approach to identifying
learning goals or objectives not necessarily linked to a standard of achievement.
A higher education view on this is offered by the Tuning (7) project on higher
education reform. This sees learning outcomes as ‘statements of what a
(7) See: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/tuning/tuning_en.html (cited 6.3.2008).

learner is expected to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after

completion of learning’ (Wagenaar, 2004). These are formulated as compe-
tences. Competences represent a dynamic combination of attributes, abilities
and attitudes. These may be developed to a greater level than required by the
learning outcome – a spiky rather than a flat profile. The generic is empha-
sised alongside the subject specialist; many in higher education are doubtful
about the term competence, seeing it as too narrow and focusing largely on
skills for the labour market.
Behind this lies a basic question about the appropriate balance when coun-
tries are developing use of learning outcomes. The appropriate balance in
different parts of national systems between learning inputs, teaching and
learning processes and learning outcomes calls for careful judgement. The
same applies to the balance between setting many tightly defined targets, and
taking a broader, holistic approach.
2.3.1. What ideas lie behind these descriptors?

It is often difficult to ascertain the source from which learning outcomes have
been derived, how development work has been undertaken and with which
experts, partners and/or stakeholders.
In some cases the information is well documented and disseminated. Meth-
odology in Germany for developing Kompetenz in VET has involved strong
interaction between researchers (whether in universities or public agencies),
policy-makers and practitioner communities, involving pilot projects, etc. The
UK’s functional methodology for analysing professional profiles and stand-
ards – leading to the identification of competences to be acquired through
training or experience, then assessed – is also well known and has been wide-
ly adapted and used in central and eastern Europe. While differing in detail,
the methodology for identifying learning content and assessment require-
ments in France for vocational and technical qualifications has some clear
similarities. Both involve giving a prominent place to employers or social part-
ners in identifying skills needs. Information from Slovenia indicates that the
Bloom taxonomy (see below) has been influential in the process of identifying
learning outcomes or competences for occupational standards.
At European level, the origin and development of outcome statements is
somewhat clearer. In higher education, the Tuning project developed a com-
plex typology based on three types of competence: instrumental, interper-
sonal and systemic. Similarly, working towards the European qualifications
framework, a series of expert papers, consultations and decisions based on
consensus of European Union governments led to an eight-scale framework
based on statements of knowledge, skills and competences. The Bologna
process adopted the ‘Dublin descriptors’ (produced by the joint quality initia-
tive – JQI) as the basis of the three higher education cycles. These descriptors
are built on knowledge and understanding, applying knowledge and under-
standing, making judgements, communication skills, and learning skills (8). For
languages, a scheme based on six levels involving linguistic attainment state-
ments in different areas of skill was modified considerably across several
years of development, as associated schemes for self‑assessment and exter-
nal testing were also built in, based on the same principles and design.
Beyond this, we are often left with a hazy answer to the question: where do
the standards or statements of learning outcomes originate? Therefore, it is
important to take a brief look at some of the influential sets of ideas that may
have given coherence to conceptualisations of learning outcomes.
2.3.2. Bloom’s taxonomy

In recent times, Bloom’s taxonomy has been the most widely known way of
categorising knowledge and skills. It has certainly had a direct impact on fram-
ing some approaches to learning outcomes, and we can expect that even
where the formulation was not known directly to stakeholders developing
learning outcomes schemes, it may still have had an indirect influence. Origi-
nally (Bloom et al., 1964) the taxonomy specified cognitive and affective do-
mains. Indeed, the taxonomy originates from the cognitive tradition described
earlier, but its influence has been far and wide. A third dimension that is now
always included in the Bloom taxonomy was added later; this is the psycho-
motor domain (Cedefop, Winterton 2006). The cognitive relates to mental skills,
or knowledge. The affective relates to feelings, attitudes and emotional as-
pects of learning. Psychomotor skills refer to manual, dexterous and physical
skills. The taxonomy above these three headings is expressed in terms of
learning outcomes; the order is intended to be in sequential order of difficulty.
Figure 2: Bloom’s taxonomy of outcomes

Evaluation Internalising values Origination
Synthesis Organising and prioritising Adaptation
Analysis Valuing Complex overt response
Application Active participation Mechanism
Comprehension Awareness and attention Guided response
Recall Set response
Perception
COGNITIVE SKILLS EMOTIVE SKILLS PSYCHOMOTOR SKILLS
(8) See Bologna working group on qualifications frameworks, 2005.

Bloom’s and similar taxonomies have certainly been influential in many

large workplace organisations (ibid.) and, at least implicitly, in formulations of
learning outcomes developed in some countries. Often, such categorisations
lead to many subcategories, sometimes seen hierarchically, sometimes, not.
In practice, a strength of the taxonomy is that it focuses attention on the need
to consider learner progression.
2.3.3. Functional analysis

Mostly, functional analysis is used to derive learning outcomes or compe-
tences for vocational education and training. This method has been in wide
use in the UK for some time and, as indicated earlier, has often been used in
some donor funded reform projects on labour market and VET developments.
Often, the method of functional analysis for developing outcomes‑based VET
qualifications in the UK follows a set process.
Figure 3: Main steps for developing outcome‑based VET qualifications

in the UK
National occupational standards (NOS) are the building blocks for VET qualifications in the UK. Sector
skills councils (SSC) and other standard setting bodies (SSB) develop the standards by involving their
respective industries and employers. In many cases, NOS are used for development of vocational
qualifications. NOS are comprised of individual statements that awarding bodies use for developing
units and qualifications.
The awarding body uses the suite of NOS, again in consultation with the relevant SSC or SSB and
other relevant partner organisations, to develop a structure for a new qualification. Usually, the
qualification structure includes both mandatory and optional units. Each unit includes a set of learning
outcomes that learners must achieve to complete the unit successfully, and for assessment. Learning
outcomes will state what a learner will know and be able to do, following a learning activity.
Source: Cortes, 2007.
2.3.4. The EQF formulation

It is well known that the EQF is expressed as a table of eight levels, each one
defined by a series of statements relating to knowledge, skills and compe-
tences. The emphasis of learning outcomes is rightly identified with the need
to define such outcomes within an inclusive approach to lifelong learning,
rather than to be tied to particular kinds and phases of institutions, curricula
and qualifications.
Prior to developing the EQF, interestingly, earlier formulations of qualifica-
tions and learning outcomes frameworks all seemed to settle on different
numbers of levels in the framework. Even in the UK and Ireland, the frame-
work for Ireland has 10 levels, Scotland 12 and England (with Wales and
Northern Ireland) eight levels. The Council of Europe’s common European
Figure 4: The European qualifications framework
Each of the eight levels is defined by a set of descriptors indicating the learning outcomes relevant to qualifications at that level in any system of qualifications
Level Knowledge Skills Competence
Described as theoretical Described as cognitive (use of logical, intuitive Described in terms of responsibility and autonomy
and/or factual and creative thinking) and practical
(involving manual dexterity and use of methods,
materials, tools and instruments)
1 Basic general knowledge Basic skills required to carry out simple tasks Work or study under direct supervision in a structured context
2 Basic factual knowledge Basic cognitive and practical skills required to use Work or study under supervision with some autonomy
of a field of work or study relevant information in order to carry out tasks and
to solve routine problems using simple rules and tools
3 Knowledge of facts, principles, A range of cognitive and practical skills required to Take responsibility for completion of tasks in work or study
processes and general concepts, accomplish tasks and solve problems by selecting and Adapt own behaviour to circumstances in solving problems
in a field of work or study applying basic methods, tools, materials and information
4 Factual and theoretical A range of cognitive and practical skills required to generate Exercise self‑management within the guidelines of work
knowledge in broad contexts solutions to specific problems in a field of work or study or study contexts that are usually predictable,
within a field of work or study but are subject to change
Supervise the routine work of others, taking some
responsibility for the evaluation and improvement
of work or study activities
5 Comprehensive, specialised, A comprehensive range of cognitive and practical skills Exercise management and supervision in contexts
factual and theoretical required to develop creative solutions to abstract problems of work or study activities where there is unpredictable
knowledge within a field change
of work or study and an Review and develop performance of self and others
awareness of the boundaries
of that knowledge
The learning outcomes concept
>>>
25
26
Each of the eight levels is defined by a set of descriptors indicating the learning outcomes relevant to qualifications at that level in any system of qualifications
Level Knowledge Skills Competence
Described as theoretical Described as cognitive (use of logical, intuitive Described in terms of responsibility and autonomy
and/or factual and creative thinking) and practical
(involving manual dexterity and use of methods,
materials, tools and instruments)
6 Advanced knowledge of a field Advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation, Manage complex technical or professional activities
of work or study, involving a required to solve complex and unpredictable problems or projects, taking responsibility for decision‑making
critical understanding in a specialised field of work or study in unpredictable work or study contexts
of theories and principles Take responsibility for managing professional
development of individuals and groups
7 Highly specialised knowledge, Specialised problem‑solving skills required in research Manage and transform work or study contexts
some of which is at the and/or innovation in order to develop new knowledge that are complex, unpredictable and require new
forefront of knowledge and procedures and to integrate knowledge from strategic approaches
in a field of work or study, as different fields Take responsibility for contributing to professional
the basis for original thinking knowledge and practice and/or for reviewing
Critical awareness the strategic performance of teams
of knowledge issues in a field
and at the interface between
different fields
8 Knowledge at the most The most advanced and specialised skills and Demonstrate substantial authority, innovation, autonomy,
advanced frontier of a field techniques, including synthesis and evaluation, required scholarly and professional integrity and sustained
of work or study and at the to solve critical problems in research and/or innovation commitment to the development of new ideas
interface between fields and to extend and redefine existing knowledge or processes at the forefront of work or study contexts
or professional practice including research
Source: European Commission (2007).

framework of reference for languages, on the other hand, uses six levels. In
conceptualising learning outcomes this suggests that they are eminently con-
textual and that the number of levels and their exact formulation will reflect
both the history of qualifications in a particular country or region as well as the
major debates and stakeholders involved. However, as a current paper on the
European qualification framework shows (Coles, 2007), European countries
currently considering how to develop their own national qualifications frame-
work seem to favour eight levels. This includes Belgium, the Czech Republic,
Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain. Several documents refer to the anticipated in-
fluence of the EQF. Is it worth noting that for higher education it is expected
that countries will produce further levels in the three Bologna cycles and, by
implication, in the EQF. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Bologna cycles
are envisaged as metaguidelines. As such they are intended to provide an
external reference point for national qualification framework alignment, thus
helping countries to develop their own levels.
2.3.5. The Tuning project

The Bologna process is attempting, as the Tuning project illustrates, to place
emphasis on learning outcomes. The Tuning project has developed its own clas-
sification of generic learning outcomes, expressed in instrumental competences,
interpersonal competences and systemic competences. This can be tabulated.
Figure 5: The Tuning project generic learning outcomes

Instrumental competences Interpersonal competences Systemic competences
Capacity for analysis Critical and self‑critical Capacity to apply knowledge
and synthesis abilities in practice
Capacity for organisation Teamwork Research skills
and planning Interpersonal skills Capacity to learn
Basic general knowledge Ability to work Capacity to adapt to new
Grounding in professional in an interdisciplinary team situations
knowledge Ability to communicate Creativity
Oral and written with experts in other fields Leadership
communication Appreciation of diversity Understanding other cultures
Knowledge of a second and multiculturalism Ability to work autonomously
language Ability to work in international Project design and
Computing skills context management
Information management skills Ethical commitment Initiative and entrepreneurial
Problem solving spirit
Decision making Concern for quality
Will to succeed
Source: Adam, 2004.

Given the number of countries whose higher education systems have

agreed to participate in the Bologna process, this classification can be ex-
pected to have an influence at policy level and – presumably in differentiated
ways – at the level of learning and teaching in higher education. The extent
to which this is already the case remains doubtful, and until now the main
impact of the Tuning learning outcomes has probably been to publicise the
importance of generic competences, which are not subject‑based but ge-
neric and transferable. One source of tension is that graduates, employers
and academics frequently apply different rankings to skills, in terms of their
importance.
2.3.6. The OECD DeSeCo project – Key ‘competencies’

The OECD has developed a classification of key competences. The definition
and selection of competencies (DeSeCo) project (OECD, 2005) describes the
classification as the result of collaboration with experts, researchers and insti-
tutions, and based on a sound theoretical understanding. Specifically, each
key ‘competency’ – this term is preferred to competence – must contribute to
valued outcomes for individuals and societies, help people meet a range of
demands in today’s world and be important for all, not just for specialists. The
three broad categories are: using tools (such as language and technology)
interactively; interacting in heterogeneous groups; and, acting autonomously.
Documentation from Finland indicates that the DeSeCo descriptors have
been influential in developing the core curriculum, which is common to basic
education, upper secondary general and vocational education and to teacher
training. It is sometimes difficult to understand clearly whether the Finnish
case relates mainly to learning outcomes, or is in a midpoint position between
learning outcomes, teaching and learning processes (a reduced core curricu-
lum) and learning inputs (taught subjects and hours of instruction). Perhaps,
also, the OECD competence scheme oscillates between a learning outcomes
approach, and a teaching and learning process approach. In Hungary, the
underlying concept of learning outcomes being developed is increasingly
based on the results of the OECD’s DeSeCo project and EU recommenda-
tions on key ‘competencies’.
2.3.7.
EU key competences
As part of the Education and training 2010 programme, the EU has also de-
veloped a set of key competences, working with expert groups representing
Member States and through consultation (European Commission, 2005). The
EU has preferred the term competence. The descriptors used for the eight key
competences are based on the categories knowledge, skills and attitudes. To
date, no attempt is made to define them by level, except in the separately

worked up areas of languages (Lenz and Schneider, 2004) and ICT.
Figure 6: The eight EU/European key competences

Communication in mother tongue Learning to learn
Communication in foreign languages Interpersonal, intercultural and social
competences and civic competence
Mathematical competence and basic Entrepreneurship
competences in science and technology
Digital competence Cultural expression
Source: Adapted from European Commission, 2005.
The detailed descriptors, which are available in the document cited, refer to
‘abilities to …’. The EU key competences fall into three groups. First, primarily
cognitive competences (such as mathematical competence) are measurable at
national and international levels. Second, there are competences that require a
higher degree of cross‑curricular organisation if they are to be achieved (digital
competence, learning to learn, social and civic competences). Finally, a group
of underpinning transversal competences is identified, such as critical thinking,
creativity, initiative, problem‑solving, risk assessment, decision‑taking and con-
structive management of feelings. In addition, the Council of Europe’s common
European framework of reference for languages is clearly anchored to learning
outcomes rather than mode of acquisition, across the domains of listening,
speaking, reading and writing. The European Commission has commissioned a
cross‑country study of key competences in general education, and this will be
one of several constructive ways in which this study can be followed up.
2.3.8. Implications
The schematic presentations of learning outcomes schemes summarised
above help to raise questions about how learning outcomes are developed in
particular settings. The following questions stand out. This can clarify:
• whether a particular set of learning outcomes is based on a particular theo-
retical position or set of research findings;
• whether a set of learning outcomes is the result of a process of negotiation
on the part of stakeholders. If so, the leading stakeholders and their moti-
vation can be identified;
• whether the set of learning outcomes are a ‘ready made’ set, which has
been developed in relation to an external reference point, such as the EQF
or the Bologna process;
• what the balance is between generic and technical/subject specific/secto-

ral learning outcomes and whether there is, for example, an overfocus on
one of the cognitive aspects.
This suggests a three‑part typology, based on the derivation of systems of
learning outcomes.
Figure 7: Derivation of learning outcome categorisations

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Learning outcomes based Learning outcomes based Learning outcomes borrowed/
on a theoretical or research on negotiation between adapted from elsewhere
formulation stakeholders
3. Learning outcomes; drivers
for change
The 2007 Cedefop study provides a detailed picture of how the learning out-
comes-based perspective and approach have been taken on across the sub-
systems of general education, higher education and vocational education and
training. The study also provides an insight into use of learning outcomes in
designing and reforming assessment, how it links to lifelong learning policies
and the critical importance of involving key stakeholders in the development
and implementation of learning outcomes approaches.
3.1. Learning outcomes in subsectors of education

and training
The following sections provide an overview of main trends and challenges in
the main areas of education and training. While this overview illustrates a clear
shift towards learning outcomes, we can still see important differences be-
tween the different subsectors.
• Vocational education and training: the drive to redefine qualifications and
curricula using learning outcomes has been most clearly seen in VET. Pro-
grammes of study and the mix of school‑based and work‑based learning are
now focused more and more on the learning outcomes called for in working
life. The clear point of reference is the kinds of skills required for successful
involvement in working life. A simultaneous shift is taking place to identify the
soft or transferable skills that the modern labour market calls for, alongside
specialist knowledge and skills. Everywhere, the challenge is to equip the
learner with the transferable skills needed for unpredictable working careers,
while at the same time meeting the labour market’s technical skills needs.
Most European countries have developed or are developing approaches to
VET qualifications that identify learning outcomes based on standards, which
are subject to procedures for validating them, and to governance and quality
assurance by recognised national, federal or regional agencies.
• Higher education: learning outcomes also have an increasingly prominent
role in higher education. So far, however, at European level the Bologna
process has concentrated mainly on commonly agreed developments of
new structures. Thus university degrees are being recast as licences, mas-
ters and doctorates (LMD). The evidence is that the learning outcomes ap-
proach, on which there is broad agreement at European policy level and
often at policy level in Member States, is being adopted more slowly at the
level of higher education institutions. The agreed formulations of generic
and specialist competences, as they are called, or locally adapted variants,
are only gradually being introduced to reformed higher education courses
and modules. Even if, as the evidence suggests, learning outcomes have a
rather limited impact on higher education at present, this is likely to prove
to be a major shift in the reform of higher education teaching and learning
in the longer term. We can describe development of learning outcomes in
higher education as a slow burning fuse: the agreed formulations for learn-
ing outcomes in higher education are as yet having limited impact, but the
situation is likely to change in the middle and longer term, with considerable
impact on higher education teaching and learning.
• General education: increasingly, learning outcomes are being introduced as
a guiding mechanism to inform general education reforms. The emphasis is
on defining learning outcomes to shape the learner’s experience, rather
than give primacy to the content of the subjects that make up the curricu-
lum. Learning outcomes are being used in a range of countries to point the
way to modernising EU schooling systems, thus acting as a renewing and
reforming influence at different levels – governance, systemic reform, cur-
riculum, pedagogy and assessment. In compulsory schooling, the study
has identified two different ways in which learning outcomes are given
prominence in the school curriculum in different countries. In one approach,
a core of learning outcomes is defined with reference to the school curricu-
lum. The learner is expected to achieve these outcomes through the expe-
rience of learning: some outcomes are linked to specific subjects within a
core curriculum, while others are learned across the whole curriculum, in-
cluding wider and informal experience. A second approach identifies holis-
tically the learning outcomes that the learner should typically achieve by
the end of a phase, or the whole of school education. These are associated
with the agreed aims and objectives of the education system. Only then are
appropriate subjects and groupings of subjects identified or brought into
play. In this case, new possibilities open up to include some new ways of
thinking about the learning process in the overall planning of learning pro-
grammes. We can expect these approaches to open up new challenges for
pedagogy and for the organisation of schools.
In both of these approaches the role of learning outcomes is to provide a
new organising focus for teaching and learning, and this can mark a radical
Learning outcomes; drivers for change 33
shift from the traditional, subject‑dominated approach to the school curricu-

lum. This can be referred to as a learner‑centred approach. As we under-
stand more about learning processes through research being conducted in
fields outside traditional domains of educational research, we can expect
the results of new research to open up new challenges for pedagogy and for
the organisation of schools. New approaches to learning outcomes in the
school curriculum are also often linked to decentralisation in arrangements
for the curriculum; various forms of decentralisation have been a marked
trend in most European countries’ education systems over two decades.
This does not mean that growing emphasis on learning outcomes signals
that provision for the definition or content of the curriculum has become
unimportant. Rather, identification of clear and apt learning outcomes acts
as an organising principle for good practice in schools. Learning outcomes
take a prominent place alongside the aims, objectives and ethos of the
system or institution. They have a direct and formative impact on the cur-
riculum and pedagogy, contributing significantly to what and how young
people learn, and should have an impact on how learning is assessed.
• Post‑compulsory general education: across Europe, the post‑compulsory
phase of general education is the part of the education system least influ-
enced by reforming ideas about learning outcomes. This is largely because,
while upper secondary general education has an educative function, this
can be overshadowed by the selective function. General upper secondary
schooling in most European countries is intended primarily to lead on to
higher education, and access to university is a restricted transition intended
for only part of each age cohort or generation. A consequence is that gen-
eral upper secondary education remains closely tied in many – though not
all – cases to detailed curriculum or syllabus requirement, often assessed
by terminal written examination. In this case, learning outcomes are limited
by the learning requirements of the groups of subjects followed, often
closely monitored by the subject specialists in universities. If learning out-
comes begin to have a formative impact on university curricula and peda-
gogies, this may in due course have a consequential effect on the curricu-
lum, pedagogy and assessment in upper secondary general education.
3.2. Learning outcomes and assessment

If the evidence and argument above are accepted, it is to be expected that
learning outcomes will have an impact on styles of assessment. However, the
evidence gathered for this report suggests that learning outcomes currently
have a limited impact on the ways in which learning is assessed. This calls for
more attention on the part of research, policy-makers and practitioners.
In this respect, recent reforms in some countries provide interesting case
studies showing the way towards introducing learning outcomes as an effective
way to guide assessment practice, replacing more traditional notions such as
course completion and tests to assess mastery of content, both of which de-
pend for their legitimacy on learning inputs. The report has brought to light sev-
eral such innovations. In Norway, the new national system of assessment is built
on agreed conceptualisations of learning outcomes, and is intended to be form-
ative for learners rather than simply summative for quality assurance purposes.
In Finland, assessment in VET at all levels is being shifted away from course or
unit completion and formal, traditional testing to what is called locally ‘demon-
stration’ assessment. This applies to school‑based and polytechnic VET qualifi-
cations, and also to recognition of skills acquired informally and non‑formally by
adults in the workplace. In Ireland, learning outcomes are a constant factor in
the newly developed and flexible system for recognising informal and non‑for-
mal learning, while the innovative Romanian system of recognition centres for
adult learning is based firmly on competences, as learning outcomes. These
approaches to assessment rely strongly on assessment vehicles such as use of
student portfolios, presentation of projects and assignments that the learner has
produced after negotiation or agreement with teachers or trainers, and forma-
tive assessment of learning experience in the community or workplace.
Even if learning outcomes are generally less influential in assessment than
in some other aspects of education and training reform, identifying active
learning as a new – or increasingly dominant – paradigm certainly raises the
question of what kinds of assessment are appropriate. The solution may be
found in linking assessment to the active learning cycle. This strongly implies
the need for formative assessment, and to build up a culture of self‑assess-
ment as an explicit part of assessment for learning. Traditional, end of qualifi-
cation examinations may perform a selective function, but they really cannot
perform this formative function.
Yet, it must be recognised that assessment legitimately has diverse pur-
poses. In practice, policy-makers, practitioners and researchers all seek a
combination of usefulness, reliability and trust from assessment. Although
there may not be consensus on where the balance should lie, the identified
shift to learning outcomes requires some major changes in well established
testing and assessment practices (9).
(9) This paragraph draws on Steiner’s presentation and Paul Black’s contribution to the Cedefop’s
learning outcomes conference, October 2007.
Vocational education and training has been the sector of education where
learning outcomes have first been brought most clearly into play. The chal-
lenge now is to find appropriate descriptors and metaphors that can make
use of learning outcomes fully appropriate to developments, such as national
qualifications frameworks, in other parts of education and training systems.
We take up this question in the next section of the conclusions.
3.3. Learning outcomes and lifelong learning

Beyond reform of particular qualifications, curricula and assessment proc-
esses, the report has shown how learning outcomes are prominent in attempts
to develop a modern, overarching approach to all aspects of education and
training. Lifelong learning policies are intended to help meet the challenges
that modern societies face, including those facing individuals, communities,
labour markets and economies.
In Europe, most Member States report (Council of the European Union,
2008) that developing a coherent lifelong learning policy is a priority, even
though few Member States can be considered to be advanced in implement-
ing a lifelong learning strategy. Overall implementation remains patchy, at
best. Further, and as might be expected from the different traditions and ap-
proaches to developing social and economic policies in evidence across the
European Union, the basic motivation that lies behind development of a life-
long learning strategy varies between countries. Some countries emphasise
the social dimension, and the entitlement of all citizens to free access to life-
long learning opportunities on as equal a basis as possible. Others, while not
ignoring social inclusion and cohesion, place the primary emphasis on em-
ployability and raising skills levels in the workforce. A third group envisages
the social and economic priorities as intertwined in developing an approach to
lifelong learning, not as separate or alternative strands. In each case, there is
a strong tendency to identify generic learning outcomes, to give shape to
policies at national level.
This is most clearly the case where a national qualifications framework ex-
ists or is under development and where efforts are in place to recognise the
outcomes of all learning experiences, irrespective of whether the setting is
formal or informal, explicit or implicit.
Cedefop’s study (2008 forthcoming) has provided numerous examples from
current usage of how learning outcomes can be conceptualised and grouped.
It is suggested that a particular formulation may be developed through adop-
tion or use of theories and research into learning outcomes, through negotia-
tion between stakeholders or, simply, through borrowing a formulation in use

elsewhere. In practice, identification of learning outcomes to create levels in a
national qualifications framework should probably contain a well‑judged mix
of these sources. In many cases, the origin of particular formulations of local
outcomes and the method for arriving at them are far from clear. This is an
aspect that should be more explicit, in developmental work and in interna-
tional comparative work.
As an item on their own, qualifications frameworks may have little value;
their dynamic purpose is to help resolve challenges in the system that need a
strategic approach. In some cases this will be a VET system that is not re-
sponsive to the needs of the labour market or work organisations. In other
cases, the pressure for wider reform will be to open up access to learning or
to further qualification to groups blocked from progression, or who face major
barriers. Again, the issue may be to bring more coherence to the whole sys-
tem, where general education, higher education and VET previously existed in
sealed compartments, with limited points of contact and transfer. A qualifica-
tions framework constitutes at best active networking and a focal point for
stakeholders engaged in the complex task of sustainably reforming major as-
pects of an education system. Therefore, an NQF development has to be seen
as an active tool that engages the main stakeholders in a process of ongoing
negotiation and, probably, compromise at different levels in the system. This
is the idea behind the Scottish credit and qualifications framework (SCQF),
which is ‘owned’ by a consortium of stakeholders, and does not sit inside the
government department.
Numerous countries now have their own national qualifications frame-
works, many more are under development, and the European qualifications
framework has been agreed by Member States and provides a point of refer-
ence for partner countries of the EU. The difference between mapping quali-
fications and a qualifications framework is that the former simply describes
existing qualifications (often by age, stage and duration), while the latter pro-
vides common threads to align the different qualifications or types of qualifi-
cations. Generic statements of learning outcomes are the approach that can
somehow link the different qualifications strands, hence the effort to identify
such outcomes.
The current influence of the EQF development may lead to a common norm
of descriptors and levels that look like those contained in the EQF. On the one
hand, it is sensible for countries developing their NQF to treat other formula-
tions as part of the research and theoretical background, or the evidence base
for developing their own policies. However, national contexts and challenges
are specific, and there is clear advantage in each Member State working out
carefully its own needs, and how to assist national strategies through devel-
opment and use of a tailored national qualifications framework. International
comparability and legibility of qualifications is one purpose of a national qual-
ifications framework, but not the only purpose. This implies policy learning,
not policy borrowing; the open method of coordination and peer learning are
already providing a constructive vehicle for this at European level.
On development and use of national qualifications frameworks, we can
conclude as follows. First, a national qualifications framework comprises at
best an active partnership engaged in a project that is intended to make a
contribution to resolving realistically some key problems in the systems where
it is located. Second, this takes time to develop, and a formal top‑down de-
velopment that uses a formulaic approach is likely at best to have little impact
or, at worst, to be counterproductive. Third, developing a useful framework is
likely to be time‑consuming and probably a gradual process.
3.4. Learning outcomes and stakeholders

Since the focus for innovation in policy and practice hinges substantially on
learning outcomes can be utilised across systems now more decentralised
that certainly cannot be micro‑managed from the centre, it follows that the
main stakeholders in education and training all have a role both in forging
change and in developing and implementing learning outcomes.
National and local policy-makers now generally operate in a decentralised
environment for education and training. This means that good governance
increasingly depends on consensus‑building agreements involving multiple
stakeholders in broad frameworks that set goals and objectives. In some Eu-
ropean countries this takes the form of legislation, while other countries prefer
an approach based on bottom‑up, evolutionary change. Learning outcomes
are well adapted to an objective‑led approach to educational reform, more so
than are more traditional approaches based on learning inputs, such as de-
tailed central statements of curriculum, and assessment that tests knowledge
of curriculum content.
Thus, policy-makers have to engage in diverse areas of reform, in which the
systems they organise evolve through participative processes, rather than
through the policy decision of a single, centralised authority. In this situation,
use of learning outcomes is conducive to the emergence of successful policies
and to development of learner‑centred practices in teaching and training.
As we have shown, policy-makers have to consider the multiple uses of
learning outcomes, whether setting objectives for lifelong learning, develop-
ing a qualifications framework or quality assurance system, or in steering the

reform of key aspects of qualifications, curriculum or assessment in general or
higher education, or VET. The ways in which Germany is approaching identifi-
cation of learning outcomes as part of developing a national qualifications
framework provides an example of this plurality. At the developmental stage,
a distinction is being made between generalised statements or a metaframe-
work of learning outcomes, which can be used to link learning outcomes re-
lating to qualifications across all the subsectors of education and training, and
the more specific outcomes that characterise the learning context in each of
the subsectors (10). These have been described as an ideal model of a hierar-
chy of theoretical outcomes, and a reality model to describe learning out-
comes for each of the main sets of national qualifications. The point to bear in
mind is that policy-makers are necessarily using learning outcomes in some-
what different ways at different levels of the conceptualisation and reform
process.
3.4.1. The crucial role of social partners

Social partners have a prominent role as stakeholders in VET developments.
As we have shown, identifying the standards against which development of
qualifications, curricula and assessment can be carried out involves, by defi-
nition, the social partners. Preferably this refers both to organisations of em-
ployers and of employees. In effective systems, the social partners are also
involved at the more local level, for example in taking the leading role in ap-
prenticeship, in providing work placements for students and, frequently, in-
volvement in local partnerships that optimise the learning and assessment
processes. In some cases employers are reluctant to engage seriously with
the further training of their employees. It is often said that employers are
more interested in the skills that new recruits bring, rather than the diplomas
they have. Similarly, ministries of education and labour may be reluctant or
inexperienced in working with stakeholders. If this is the case, the more
transparency that diplomas have through the impact of learning outcomes,
the better.
The social partners also have a legitimate role in participating as a stake-
holder in learning outcomes-led reforms in other parts of the education sys-
tem. However, employability is obviously not the only value attached to suc-
cessful education systems. The role of employment-related skills is urgent in
the drive for European competitiveness, but this must be balanced against
(10) This example is quoted with reference to the presentation (at the Cedefop conference on learning
outcomes) of Prof Volker Gehmlich, UAS Osnabruck, Germany – see above.
other legitimate specialist and broadly social goals, whether in higher educa-
tion, general education or in VET.
3.4.2. The role of teachers and trainers

Teaching and training professionals are at the heart of learning‑outcomes led
reform. This is the case, even though shifting to using learning outcomes sig-
nals a move away from the dominance of what schools and teachers can
provide, to an emphasis on learner needs and the requirements of working life
and the wider community. Emphasis is placed on changing and optimising
professional practice. A move away from traditional curricula and assessment
to approaches led through learning outcomes is a marked shift for which, at
the very least, teachers and trainers need to be properly prepared.
If learning outcomes are broadly defined, the teacher’s role moves towards
facilitation. Well defined learning outcomes require well thought out and sen-
sitive pedagogies to facilitate them. Broadly defined and holistic learning
outcomes are key to the changing approach to teaching and learning. Opti-
mally, this means that teachers are involved at all levels in the planning as
well as the implementation of learning-outcomes led reforms. Often, howev-
er, this is not the case. We have indicated that detailed attention to teachers
and trainers (including school leaders and those offering information, advice
and guidance) lies outside the scope of this study, and these issues call for
further research. Such work is already under way elsewhere, in recognition
that in many countries and at European level this aspect has received insuf-
ficient attention. It is to be expected that the impact of learning outcomes is
somewhat different for teachers in the different sectors and phases of educa-
tion and training.
Research communities can ensure that policy-makers and practitioners
base reforms and new practice on a sound evidence base, and can frequent-
ly be involved in both trials for new practice and evaluation of the impact of
initiatives. Work that relates to learning outcomes is still innovative in terms of
common and accepted practice, and this opens up possibilities and respon-
sibilities for research communities. There is a need for more comparative work
and, in particular, for local and national researchers to inform policy‑making
and practitioner communities of both the possibilities and shortcomings of
initiatives that have developed learning outcomes to a prominent position
elsewhere. Education researchers should be encouraged to lead multidiscipli-
nary work to energise ideas and knowledge and communication about learn-
ing outcomes. An important part is to widen access to new ideas about learn-
ing emanating from research traditions that are wider than those usually
encompassed by education research.
3.4.3. The role and interests of learners

Logically, learners should be an identified stakeholder, as is now happening
in some settings. This is appropriate both to national debate and reform and
to local, institutional settings. Involving learners can take active forms
through involvement in planning, or a more limited role, for example through
sampling or open response to online questionnaires. We have shown how a
shift towards learning outcomes is associated in many settings with a move
towards more individualised learning, including use of individual learning
plans. In this case, the learner is almost by definition involved in negotiating
aspects of the learning programme, and identifying appropriate forms of
review and assessment. This implies engaging the learner at the microlearn-
ing level, as a partner.
Of course, this summary of stakeholders and their involvement is not ex-
haustive. Indeed, numerous other stakeholders from across civil society, such
as community organisations, will expect to have a legitimate voice.
4. Conclusion
Even though it has not been possible to capture all the examples of interesting
development and practice, the 2007 Cedefop study has brought to light many
examples of the ways in which learning outcomes are prominent in European
education and training systems and reforms.
Clearly, the study has covered an aspect of policy in which there is already
a considerable, and growing, volume of activity at different levels in both na-
tional and local systems.
Policy-makers, school leaders and practitioners should bear in mind that
learning outcomes are not the only show in town. If we take the planned learn-
ing experience as the basis of what the study has examined, we can identify
a definite shift from the content‑led curriculum to a learning outcomes ap-
proach. The focus changes, but the other components of the process do not
disappear. Learning outcomes are the focus, and provide a key role in organ-
ising systemic aims, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and quality assur-
ance. These other factors remain significant in planning and implementation.
Seeking a clear and external point of reference, learning outcomes are of-
ten tied in with the standards and skills of the labour market. This is tempting
because skills for employment are important, and because in many countries
identification of learning outcomes has begun in the VET sector. However, ef-
fective development means taking account of the specificity of different learn-
ing contexts. While it may be possible to reach idealised statements to link
subsectors, in practice learning outcomes will continue to be diverse, and
depend strongly on their context and the purpose for which they are used.
Placing learning outcomes prominently is strongly linked to the shift to ac-
tive learning, and blurs the distinction between theoretical and practical learn-
ing. This is helpful to both policy‑makers and practitioners, as they try to inte-
grate different kinds of learning, such as the theoretical and the vocational,
and to motivate the whole range of learners. Often, this is associated with
making learning programmes modular or with unit‑based assessment. This is
associated with attempts at European and national levels to develop systems
of credit accumulation and transfer. A test of whether learning outcomes can
in practice help to unify different approaches should be undertaken currently
in the European context of Education and training 2010. At the Cedefop con-
ference that discussed interim findings of this study, there was debate on the
differing approaches being taken to learning outcomes as a basis of credit

systems at European level, in higher education (ECTS – the European credit
transfer scheme) and in vocational education and training (ECVET – European
credit for vocational education and training).
It follows that successfully adopting an approach to governance that links
identification of aims and objectives to new forms of decentralisation and new
concepts of learning outcomes at different levels in the education system,
also calls for new forms of partnership. Hence, there is a need for strong
stakeholder participation in developments at system level of, for example, a
national or federal authority. The case stated a little earlier also suggests that
developing learning outcomes in relation to national policy development
should be a careful and quite open process, not one owned exclusively by the
administration. Identification of learning outcomes has to be a collaborative
effort, if it is to be meaningful.
Thus, new forms of partnership are also called for at local level. Programmes
that link theoretical learning with practical experience may demand a dynam-
ic learning partnership involving local consortia of schools, local authorities
and employers or community groups. In this case there can be shared owner-
ship of learning outcomes. Establishing new approaches to the curriculum
may involve active participation of teachers and university researchers to de-
velop and evaluate initiatives. Thus, variants of localised action research be-
come possible.
So far as learning outcomes are concerned, a basic argument we have
developed is adopting learning outcomes is an important part of the diverse
framework for success – at whatever level is in question – in European educa-
tion and training systems. This involves a culture shift, which cannot be
achieved top‑down. Therefore, making change happen also means allowing
sufficient time and efficient means for change to emerge.
Bibliography
Adam, S. An introduction to learning outcomes: a consideration of the nature, function and posi-
tion of learning outcomes in the creation of the European Higher Education Area. In Froment,
E.; Kohler, J. (eds). EUA Bologna Handbook. Berlin: Raabe Verlag, 2006.
Adam, S. New challenges in recognition: the recognition of prior learning. Official Bologna Proc-
ess Seminar: why is the recognition of prior experiential learning important and what are the
national and institutional implications of this for lifelong learning? Riga: AIC, 2007. Available
from Internet: http://www.aic.lv/bologna2007/docs/S_Adam_background_report.pdf [cited
7.3.2008].
Adam, S. Using learning outcomes: a consideration of the nature, role, application and implica-
tions for European education of employing learning outcomes at the local, national and inter-
national levels. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2004.
Agency for Vocational Education. CARDS 2002 projekt: Strukovno obrazovanje i osposobljavanje:
modernizacija i izgradnja, institucija = White Paper: proposals and recommendations con-
cerning VET policy, strategy and legislation. Available from Internet: http://www.aso.hr/data/
VET_white_paper_english.pdf [cited 7.3.2008].
Allais, Stephanie Matseleng. Why the South African NQF failed: lessons for countries that want to
introduce national qualifications frameworks. European Journal of Education, 2007, Vol. 42,
No 4.
Bloom, B.; Mesia, B.; Krathwohl, D. Taxonomy of educational objectives (Vols 1 and 2). New York:
David McKay, 1964.
Bologna working group on qualifications frameworks. A framework for qualifications of the European
higher education area. Copenhagen: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, 2005.
Bouder, A.; Kirsch, J.L. The French vocational education and training system: like an unrecog-
nised prototype? European Journal of Education, 2007, Vol. 42, No 4.
Brockmann, Michaela. Qualifications, learning outcomes and competencies: a review of the lit-
erature. Draft working paper. Available from Internet: http://www.nuffield14-19review.org.uk/
files/documents155-1.pdf [cited 6.3.2008].
Carneiro, R. et al. Futures of learning: a compelling agenda. European Journal of Education, 2007,
Vol. 42, No 2.
Cedefop. The role of learning outcomes in national education and training policies and practices:
a comparative study. Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2008 (forthcoming).
Cedefop; Béduwé, C. et al. New and emerging issues in vocational education and training re-
search beyond 2010. In Cedefop; Descy, P.; Tessaring M. (eds). Modernising vocational edu-
cation and training. Fourth report on vocational training research in Europe: background re-
port. Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2006. (Cedefop Reference series).
Cedefop; Descy, P.; Tessaring, M. (eds). Cedefop fourth research report: modernising vocational
education and training. Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2008 [forthcoming].
Cedefop; Grootings, P.; Nielsen, S. Policy learning: applying the changing learning paradigm for
policy advice on VET reforms in transition countries. In Cedefop; Descy, P.; Tessering, M.
(eds). Modernising vocational education and training: fourth report on VET research in Eu-
rope. Thessaloniki: Cedefop, 2008 [forthcoming].
Cedefop; Winterton, J. et al. Typology of knowledge, skills and comptences: clarification of the
concept and prototype. Luxembourg; Publications Office, 2006. (Cedefop Reference series).
Coles, M. Qualifications frameworks in Europe: platforms for collaboration, integration and re-
form. Conference paper presented at Making the European learning area a reality,
3‑5 June 2007, Munich, 2007.
Cortes, S. Note on the development of national occupational standards and learning outcomes in
UK vocational qualifications. London: QCA, 2007 [unpublished].
Council of the European Union. Draft 2008 joint progress report of the Council and the Commis-
sion on the implementation of the Education and training 2010 work programme: delivering
lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation: adoption. Brussels: Council of the
European Union, 2008. (EDUC 29 SOC 46). Available from Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/edu-
cation/policies/2010/natreport08/council_en.pdf [cited 11.3.2008].
Council of the European Union. Education and training 2010: the success of the Lisbon strategy
hinges on urgent reforms: draft joint interim report of the Council and the Commission on the
implementation of the detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education
and training systems Europe. Brussels: Council of the European Union, 2004. Available from
Internet: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st06/st06236.en04.pdf [cited 11.3.2008].
Crosier, D; Purser, L; Smidt, H. Universities shaping the European higher education area. Brus-
sels: European Universities Association, 2007. Available from Internet: http://www.eua.be/
fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/EUA_Trends_V_for_web.pdf [cited 6.3.2008].
Delors, Jacques. Education for the twenty-first century: issues and prospects: contributions to the
work of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century: Education
on the move. Paris: Unesco, 1998.
DfES. Bologna process stocktaking report 2007. London: DfES, 2007. Available from Internet:
http://www.aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/2005_07/Reports/Stocktaking.pdf [cited 6.3.2008].
Dreyfus, H; Dreyfus, S. Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the era
of the computer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
Driscoll, M. Psychology of learning for instruction. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.
ENQA. Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area.
Helsinki: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2005. Available
from Internet: http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_v03.pdf [cited 7.3.2008].
EUNEC. State of affairs of the European education policy, September 2007. Brussels: European
Network of Education Councils, 2007.
European Commission. Development of vocational training policy: common European principles
for validation of non-formal and informal learning. Brussels: European Commission, 2004.
Available from Internet: http://www.ecotec.com/europeaninventory/publications/EC_
common_principles_validation_20040303.pdf [cited 6.3.2008].
European Commission. Proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on key competences for lifelong learning. Brussels: European Commission, 2005.
(COM (2005) 548 final).
European Commission. Proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the establishment of the European qualifications framework for lifelong learning.
Brussels: European Commission, 2006. (COM (2006) 459 final).
European Ministers of Education. London communiqué: towards the European Higher Education
Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world. London: Bologna 5th Ministerial Confer-
ence, 2007. Available from Internet: http://www.cicic.ca/docs/bologna/2007London
Communique.en.pdf [cited 11.3.2008].
Eurydice. Learning outcomes. Slough, UK: Eurydice at NFER, 2008 [forthcoming].
Flavell, J. et al. Cognitive development. [3rd ed.]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993.
Bibliography 45
Fretwell, D; Lewis, M; Deij, A. A framework for defining and assessing occupational and training
standards in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001.
Goleman, Daniel. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 1995.
Goleman, Daniel. Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. Bloomsbury, 1996.
Goleman, Daniel. Social intelligence: the new science of human relationships. New York: Bantam
Books, 2006.
González, J.; Wagenaar, R. Tuning educational structures in Europe: final report of the socrates
project (Phase 1): glossary. Bilbao: University of Deusto, 2003. Available from Internet: http://
www.tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=59&task=doc
click&bid=17&limitstart=0&limit=5 [cited 11.3.2008].
Gordon J. Approaches to transparency of vocational qualifications in the EU. European Journal of
Education, 1999, Vol. 34, No 2.
Haasler, B.; Erpenbeck, J. Assessing vocational competences. In Rauner, F.; Mclean, R. (eds).
Handbook on VET research. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008 [forthcoming].
Immordino-Yang, M.H., Damasio, A. We feel therefore we learn: the relevance of affective and
social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain and Education Journal, Blackwell Publishing,
2007. Available from Internet: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/
j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x [cited 11.3.2008].
Kolb, D. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.
Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991.
Leney T. Trends and issues in level 3 qualifications: a survey of four countries. London: QCA,
2002.
Leney, T. et al. Achieving the Lisbon goal: the contribution of VET. Brussels: European Commis-
sion, 2005. Available from Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/studies/
maastricht_en.pdf [cited 11.3.2008].
Lenz, P.; Schneider, G. Introduction to the bank of descriptors for self-assessment in European
language portfolios. Friburg: University of Friburg, 2004.
Marginson, S.; Van Der Wende, M. Globalization and higher education. Paris: OECD, 2007.
Michel, Alain. Parcours et compétences: les EPLE sont-ils prêts. Administration et Education, No
114, 2007.
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. National programme for the development of education in
the Czech Republic: white paper. Prague: IIE, 2001. Available from Internet: http://www.
msmt.cz/files/pdf/whitepaper.pdf [cited 11.3.2008].
Oberheidt, Stéphanie; Delhaxhe, Arlette. Focus on the structure of higher education in Europe:
2006/07 national trends in the Bologna process. Brussels: Eurydice, 2007.
OECD. The definition and selection of key competences: executive summary: DeSeCo project.
Paris: OECD, 2005. Available from Internet: http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,2340,en_26
49_34515_2669073_1_1_1_1,00.html [cited 14.3.2008].
Parkes, D.; Nielsen, S. A cross country analysis of ETF peer reviews on curricular reform in voca-
tional education and training in four South East European transition countries. Turin: ETF, 2006.
Raffe, David. Making haste slowly: the evolution of a unified qualifications framework in Scotland.
European Journal of Education, No 42, 2007.
Rychen, D.S.; Salganic, L.H. A holistic model of competence. In Rychen, D.S.; Salganic, L.H.
(eds). Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society. Göttingen:
Hogrefe and Huber, 2003.
Schön, D. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books,
1983.
Skolverket. Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and the leisure-
time centre. Stockholm: LPO 94, 2006. Available from Internet: http://www.isn.nacka.se/en-
gelska/isn_allmant/lpo94eng.pdf [cited 11.3.2008].
Verloop, N; Lowyck, J. (eds). Onderwijskunde: een kennisbasis voor professionals. Groningen:
Wolters, 2003.
Wagenaar, R. The tuning approach: a case study. Presentation: Edinburgh, Scottish Executive
2004.
Wenger, E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1999.
Wolf, A. Competence-based assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995.
Internet references
BMUKK, Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/enfr/min_en/index.xml
Cedefop is the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training.
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/
DCSF, 2007 Bologna process stocktaking London 2007 DfES/Socrates. Available online:
www.dfes.gov.uk/londonbologna/
Eurydice is an institutional network for gathering, monitoring, processing and circulating reliable
and readily comparable information on education systems and policies throughout Europe.
http://www.eurydice.org/portal/page/portal/Eurydice
NCCA, Ireland National Council for Curriculum and Assessment
http://www.ncca.ie
PISA The Programme for international student assessment (PISA) is an internationally standard-
ised assessment that was jointly developed by participating countries and administered to 15
year‑olds in schools.
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235907_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Tuning Reports (EU Socrates project) are on
http://www.relint.deusto.es/TUNINGProject/index.htm
Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training)

Conceptual, political and practical
developments in Europe
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2008 - IV, 47 pp. - 17.6 x 25 cm

2008 – IV, 47 pp. – 17.6 × 25 cm
ISBN- 978-92-896-0540-3
ISBN 000-00-000-0000-0
Cat No: TI-30-08-312-EN-C
Cat. No: ??-00-00-000-EN-C
No of publication: 4079
No of publication: ????
How to obtain EU publications
Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where

you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice.
The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their con-
tact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.
Theshiftto
This booklet draws on the ongoing shift to learning outcomes
TI-30-08-312-EN-C
in European education and training policies and practices. It fo-
cuses on the conceptual basis and developmental main trends
of the learning outcomes approach in the 32 European countries
participating in the Education and training 2010 programme.
The text which is based on the comparative study conduct-
ed by Cedefop in 2007, covers developments in general edu-
learning
cation, vocational education and training, and higher educa-
tion. The lines of research are: (a) conceptual clarification of
learning outcomes; (b) learning outcomes as an aspect of pol-
icy reform at national, local and institutional levels; (c) the
learning outcomes as a component of modernising education
and training systems.
outcomes
ISBN 978-92-896-0540-3
00_2008_1027_cover_EN.indd 1 7-05-2008 10:20:27

The Shift To Learning Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Shift To Learning Outcomes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Shift To Learning Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theshiftto

This booklet draws on the ongoing shift to learning outcomes

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008

Europe 123, GR-570 01 Thessaloniki (Pylea)

A great deal of additional information on the European Union

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008

© European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2008

Designed by Colibri Ltd. - Greece

European countries are increasingly referring to learning outcomes when set-

2. The learning outcomes concept 15

3. Learning outcomes; drivers for change 31

01_2008_1027_txt_EN.indd 5 6-05-2008 16:35:59

01_2008_1027_txt_EN.indd 7 6-05-2008 16:35:59

Cedefop’s forthcoming study on learning outcomes (1) demonstrates the in-

(1) Cedefop, 2008 (forthcoming).

bottom‑up interventions are an important part of the process and identifying

This booklet addresses the ongoing shift to learning outcomes in European

In sectors of education and in countries where the term ‘learning outcomes’ is

EQF defines learning outcomes as statements of what a learner knows, understands

However, the simplicity and comprehensiveness begins to unravel as soon

2.1. Gradual emergence of a learning outcomes

(2) The Swedish National Agency for Education.

(4) OECD PISA reports: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32236130_1_1_1_1_1,

2.2. Learning outcomes – Opening up towards

On the other hand, active learning (constructivist) approaches see learning

(5) See Driscoll (2000) for a critical evaluation.

Contrasting these approaches to learning, Cedefop, Grootings and Nielson

tors) in the Bologna overarching framework for qualifications of the European

2.3. The challenge of describing learning outcomes

Figure 1: Some categories used for describing learning outcomes

which formulate learning outcomes. In Greece, learning outcomes are cate-

(7) See: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/tuning/tuning_en.html (cited 6.3.2008).

learner is expected to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after

2.3.1. What ideas lie behind these descriptors?

2.3.2. Bloom’s taxonomy

Figure 2: Bloom’s taxonomy of outcomes

(8) See Bologna working group on qualifications frameworks, 2005.

Bloom’s and similar taxonomies have certainly been influential in many

2.3.3. Functional analysis

Figure 3: Main steps for developing outcome‑based VET qualifications

Source: Cortes, 2007.

2.3.4. The EQF formulation

Source: European Commission (2007).

2.3.5. The Tuning project

Figure 5: The Tuning project generic learning outcomes

Source: Adam, 2004.

Given the number of countries whose higher education systems have

2.3.6. The OECD DeSeCo project – Key ‘competencies’

date, no attempt is made to define them by level, except in the separately

Figure 6: The eight EU/European key competences

Source: Adapted from European Commission, 2005.

• what the balance is between generic and technical/subject specific/secto-

Figure 7: Derivation of learning outcome categorisations

3.1. Learning outcomes in subsectors of education

shift from the traditional, subject‑dominated approach to the school curricu-

3.2. Learning outcomes and assessment

3.3. Learning outcomes and lifelong learning