From course objectives to learning outcomes: A case of the emperor’s new clothes?

Below is an article review/synopsis and application written for my Teaching and Assessing Communication Arts course.

Synopsis

Although aimed at nursing educators, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) shed some good insights on the difference between educational objectives and outcomes that offers helpful guidance to communication educators. They argue that while some see the change simply as cosmetic and a nod to political correctness – an attempt to adorn pedagogic language with the emperor’s new clothes – it can lead to substantive reconceptualization of the educational enterprise.

In their article, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) unpack the historical evolution of course design language from the use of teaching objectives to a preference for learning outcomes. Historically, the authors trace the use of objectives to the work of American educator Ralph Tyler, who has been called the father of educational assessment. Tyler’s looser standards for developing teaching objectives were later refined by educators such as Benjamin Bloom.

The authors suggest that rather than being merely semantic, the move from objectives to outcomes represents a fundamental paradigm shift in education. Indeed, the language itself provides clues to this shift in emphasis – teaching objectives place the emphasis on the teacher, while learning outcomes put the spotlight on the learner. In other words, the change helps to “redirect the teaching/learning process and bring about a closer link to the learner” (p. 233).

To cast further light on the theoretical differences between objective-focussed course design and outcome-based education, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) note as follows:

An objective speaks to the process and the goal. Therefore it is teacher and student focussed. An outcome, a final product or end result, speaks to the goal, so its focus is the student, because learning is the goal for the student. (p. 233)

Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) also suggest links between economic debates about the return of investment on education expenditures and the shift to the more accountable language implied by outcomes.

Application

The authors discuss some implications for this shift from objectives to outcomes for the teacher and the student. A key implication is the need to focus more on educational products than on educational processes. As Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) put it, “the process is no longer the priority in learning…The outcome, what the student…will cognitively, skillfully, or affectively demonstrate by the end of the experience, is most important” (p. 234).
An outcome-based perspective also calls for teachers to empower their students to take ownership of their own academic development. In the words of the authors, “the paradigm shift removed the focus from the teacher and extended the responsibility of learning to the learner” (p. 234).

Furthermore, outcome-based course design demands that in determining the path that a course will take, teachers think first and foremost of the needs of students, rather than starting the planning process with their personal agendas, values, ideologies, or educational preferences.

Finally, although this revision of language is not enough without the paradigmatic changes discussed above, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) note that teachers can indicate a shift from objectives to outcomes through a small change in course planning phraseology. Instructors should include the antecedent at the end of this course before they state the intended end point of learning (the behavioral outcome), i.e. the student will be able to. This minor adjustment in language is a flag that the course is outcome-based, at least in intent.

References

Wittmann-Price, R. A., & Fasolka, B. J. (2010). Objectives and outcomes: The fundamental difference. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(4), 233-236.