Over recent months we have seen an attack on learning 'outcomes'. What are we to make of this? Can anybody really be opposed to attempts to specify what we want children to learn in our schools? Is there another agenda? ACER chief executive Professor Geoff Masters explores these issues.

Traditionally, a central concern in school education was the question of what teachers should teach. This was spelled out in centrally prescribed syllabuses. Students were streamed on the basis of test or examination results and teachers delivered the same syllabus to all students in a class. Accountability-to the extent that it existed-required evidence that the relevant syllabus had been taught. Little attention was paid to specific learning difficulties or individual learning needs. End of year examinations determined whether a student could reproduce enough of what had been taught to 'pass' and so advance to the next grade.

During the twentieth century, educators Ralph Tyler, Benjamin Bloom and others underscored the observation that schooling is fundamentally about children learning. More important than the question of whether and what teachers have taught is the question of whether and what students have learnt. Of course, these are related: if teachers are not teaching, then students are unlikely to be learning. But it was an important shift to put student learning at the heart of the education process. From the point of view of accountability, it was no longer sufficient to know that teachers had taught the syllabus (input); the more important question was what progress students had made (output).

A learning-centred view of schooling has a number of practical implications. First, the emphasis is placed on what students are to learn rather than on what teachers are to teach. What are the knowledge, skills and understandings that all students should develop by particular points in their schooling? The specification of these desired learning 'outcomes' then invites consideration of the best ways to achieve them.

Second, with greater clarity about desired student learning it becomes unnecessary to require every teacher to teach in exactly the same way. Professional judgements can be made about the most appropriate ways to achieve desired learning outcomes with particular groups of students. Of course, teachers still require quality teaching materials, professional support and research-based information about effective teaching strategies.

Third, a learning-centred approach requires a deeper understanding by teachers of how students learn. What are typical paths of student development? What difficulties and misunderstandings do students commonly develop? It is not sufficient to be an expert in the subject; teachers also require a deep understanding of how children learn school subjects (ie, pedagogical content knowledge).

And finally, teachers must be experts in establishing where individuals are in their learning and in monitoring progress over time (ie, formative or developmental assessment). In recent decades, research into learning has highlighted the importance of diagnosing individual difficulties and development and of providing challenging learning opportunities appropriate to students' current levels of attainment.

This is all much more demanding on classroom teachers. Added to this, if students are not learning, teachers are now held partly responsible. Not surprisingly, there are some who would prefer a return to traditional classrooms in which teachers were given a syllabus to teach, the onus for successful learning was squarely on students themselves, and assessments were limited to summative examinations. In an attempt to turn back the clock, opponents of learning-centred education are adopting a three-pronged strategy:

•  attack learning outcomes (making American 'Outcomes Based Education' a target is especially convenient because there is an old literature that can be used to advantage);

•  assert that outcomes are responsible for declining standards (in fact, link 'outcomes' to anything that may sound bad: lack of academic rigour, failure to teach the basics, political correctness, constructivism, whole language, fuzzy maths, soft assessment, increased teacher workload, re-inventing the wheel, etc); and

•  sell these questionable associations to powerful individuals who are concerned about educational standards.

The problem with this strategy is that it overlooks a few important facts.

The specification of learning outcomes is not inconsistent with international excellence. Singapore , the country that consistently performs at or near the top in TIMSS, organises its curriculum around 'Learning Outcomes'. For example, the Year 3 science curriculum specifies nineteen Learning Outcomes, including the following :

•  shows an understanding that different organisms have different life cycles; and

•  recognises that there is a great variety of materials (eg, plastics, wood, rubber, glass, fabrics, ceramics and metals).

Finland, the country that consistently performs at or near the top in PISA, explicitly uses 'student-centred instruction', has no streaming and no national tests or examinations at any time during a child's schooling . Finnish teachers have considerable discretion in how they teach.

The specification of learning outcomes is not inconsistent with academic rigour. The learning outcomes specified in most Australian curriculum documents include key knowledge, skills and understandings underpinning subject disciplines. It is true that some attempts to specify desired learning have gone into too much detail, fragmenting the curriculum into many independent bits of learning. Other attempts have resulted in outcomes that are too vague and too open to interpretation. Neither of these extremes assists teachers in designing classroom activities. The best learning outcomes describe growth in essential knowledge, skills, understandings, attitudes and values and are worded in ways that provide guidance for teaching.

The specification of learning outcomes is not inconsistent with explicit teaching. A focus on learning outcomes and individual progress does not mean that students should be left alone to do what they wish or to learn for themselves. Intervention to address students' misunderstandings and direct teaching of subject matter-including whole-class teaching-are important elements of effective teacher practice in learning-centred classrooms.

The specification of learning outcomes is not inconsistent with rigorous assessment. Clear statements of what students are expected to learn provide a better basis for constructing tests and examinations than descriptions of what teachers are planning to do. Sound measurement requires knowledge of what students are expected to learn as a result of classroom activities such as growing tulips or studying Othello. Ongoing classroom assessments and end of year examinations both require a clear focus on intended learning outcomes.

Learning-centred approaches require clarity about the knowledge, skills and understandings students are to develop; the diagnosis and monitoring of individual difficulties and progress; and the design and delivery of learning activities tailored to students' current needs and levels of attainment. These requirements impose greater demands on the professionalism of teachers. For this reason it is important that teachers are supported with quality teaching materials, processes for recording and monitoring student progress, professional development, and reliable information about effective teaching strategies.

The route to high standards in education is not to revert to one-size-fits-all prescriptions of what and how all teachers should teach. The answer lies in excellent, creative teaching focused on the learning outcomes we want for all children in our schools.

Valijarvi, J et al. (2000). The Finnish Success in PISA and Some Reasons Behind It . Jyvaskyla : Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyvaskyla .

« Back to eNews