The Trouble with Learning Outcomes

260 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: a framework for students becoming researchers (2007, background): “They give the impression of precision, only because we unconsciously interpret them against a prior understanding of what is required’ (Hussey & Smith, 2002 , p.”
Learning outcomes: a conceptual analysis (2008, background): “Hussey and Smith (2003), following Megginson (1994, 1996), distinguished between intended and emergent leaning outcomes, with a continuum between the two consisting of contiguous, related and incidental learning outcomes.”
Formal and integrated strategies for competence development in SMEs (2011, methodology): “Several alternative methods for conceptualizing and measuring learning outcomes have also been proposed (e.g. Kraiger, Ford & Salas, 1993; Kozlowski & Salas, 1997; for a critical discussion of the concept of learning outcomes, see Hussey & Smith, 2002).”
Transitions in higher education (2010, background): “When properly understood they can act as guide posts for the autonomous learner (Hussey & Smith, 2002, 2003).”
Learning outcomes and critical thinking – good intentions in conflict (2018, background): “When learning outcomes are expected to cover critical thinking, the problem of interpretation suggested by, for example, Hussey and Smith (2002) becomes more complex because the interpretative framework needs to go beyond disciplinary content, as the interpretation must cover the concept of critical”