Teaching in Higher Education

ISSN: 1356-2517 (Print) 1470-1294 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Learning about learning outcomes: the student

perspective

Sara Brooks, Kerry Dobbins, Jon J.A. Scott, Mark Rawlinson & Robert I.
Norman

To cite this article: Sara Brooks, Kerry Dobbins, Jon J.A. Scott, Mark Rawlinson & Robert I.
Norman (2014) Learning about learning outcomes: the student perspective, Teaching in Higher
Education, 19:6, 721-733, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2014.901964

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901964

Published online: 27 Mar 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2647

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20
Teaching in Higher Education, 2014
Vol. 19, No. 6, 721–733, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901964

Learning about learning outcomes: the student perspective

Sara Brooksa, Kerry Dobbinsa, Jon J.A. Scottb, Mark Rawlinsonc and Robert I. Normana*
a
Department of Medical & Social Care Education, Leicester Medical School, University of
Leicester, University Road, 107 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK; bSchool of Biological
Sciences, University of Leicester, University Road, 107 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7RH,
UK; cSchool of English, University of Leicester, University Road, 107 Princess Road East,
Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
(Received 26 September 2013; final version received 23 February 2014)

Despite an extensive literature on how to frame learning outcomes, to date, limited

attention has been given to understanding whether and how students actually use
them. This study employed a questionnaire survey and focus groups with students in
three disciplines at the University of Leicester to explore students’ perceptions and use
of learning outcomes. The findings suggest that the majority of students find learning
outcomes useful and use them to support their studies in various ways. However, the
data also indicate that some students struggle to understand from their learning
outcomes the level of learning required to cover their topic area or to pass
assessments. Additionally, certain respondents reported that learning outcomes can
restrict or overfragment their knowledge. Whilst many students wanted learning
outcomes to remain a central part of their learning experience, the findings suggest
further work is required to establish more effective use of learning outcomes as a
learning resource.
Keywords: learning outcomes; students; student-centred learning; assessment

Introduction
Learning outcomes in the higher education context have received considerable attention
in recent years both within the educational literature and from educational practitioners
(Hussey and Smith 2008). The extent of this application is evident from Internet searches
of the term ‘learning outcomes’, which can yield anything from nine million (Bing search
engine) to over 28 million (Google search engine) results1; much of this relating to the
guidance of different organisations/institutions on writing appropriate and effective
learning outcomes. Yet there is growing debate about whether learning outcomes, in their
current usage, are serving primarily bureaucratic needs rather than educational purposes.
Hussey and Smith (2002, 2003, 2008, 2010) have critically challenged current usage by
identifying learning as too fluid and dynamic a process to ever be captured with any real
precision by learning outcomes. They also suggest learning outcomes have become too
aligned to managerial and audit processes and, as such, are less useful to teachers and
students (Hussey and Smith 2008). This point is supported by Gosling (2009). Other
scholars, whilst acknowledging these criticisms, outline the positive effects they believe
learning outcomes can have, such as helping students to identify and work towards their

*Corresponding author. Email: rin1@le.ac.uk

© 2014 Taylor & Francis
722 S. Brooks et al.

targets (Race 1998) and encouraging them to plan, manage and take more responsibility
for their own learning (Adam 2008).
Surprisingly, given the general consensus from advocates that learning outcomes
mark the move from teacher-directed to student-centred learning (Maher 2004; Adam
2008; Roberts 2008) and despite the widespread application of learning outcomes and
growing debates about their use and usefulness in higher education, very little attention
has been given to understanding whether and how students actually use them.
To address this limitation, this paper provides a more detailed critical exploration of
the gap in knowledge about students’ use of learning outcomes and describes the initial
results of an investigation into students’ use and perceptions of learning outcomes.

The learning outcomes literature

There has been ongoing debate for more than a decade regarding the use of learning
outcomes in higher education (see, for example, Hussey and Smith 2002; Maher 2004;
Rees 2004; Buss 2008). The aim of this paper is not to rehearse at length the often cited
benefits or criticisms of learning outcomes, as they have been synthesised effectively by
other scholars already. Maher (2004), for example, outlines the arguments commonly
used to support the use of learning outcomes. These revolve primarily around the notion
of putting the student at the centre of the learning experience by using learning outcomes
to focus attention more directly on the activities and the achievements of students, rather
than simply on the teaching of the curriculum content. In this way, learning outcomes are
viewed as representing a shift in undergraduate education from a traditional ‘instructional
paradigm’ to a ‘learning paradigm’ (Barr and Tagg 1995, cited in Maher 2004, 47). Other
benefits attributed to learning outcomes are that they enable higher education systems and
qualifications to become ‘transparent’ (Adam 2004, 3) and more easily benchmarked
against nationally established standards applied by a professional, statutory and regulatory
body. Maher (2004, 48) observes that this benchmarking ensures ‘that universities are
delivering high quality and achieving value for money from public investment’. Werquin
(2012) further suggests that learning outcomes help to connect the world of education and
the world of work by making standards associated with particular qualifications easier for
employers to understand.
In contrast, Hussey and Smith (2002, 2003, 2008, 2010) have articulated the
criticisms against, or limitations of, learning outcomes as they are currently used. As
already noted, Hussey and Smith (2002) suggest that learning outcomes can never fully
capture the open, creative and dynamic process of learning. Instead, they may lead to a
narrowing of students’ learning and tutors delivery around the predetermined outcomes.
Supporting this view, Buss (2008) identified that creativity in learning, i.e. students
pursuing their own original and unique outcomes, may be endangered when the results of
learning are prescribed before the learning journey has even begun. Hussey and Smith
(2003, 358) also conclude that learning outcomes are ‘imbued with a spurious sense of
precision and clarity’ and remain insensitive to different learning contexts and subject
disciplines. They suggest that learning outcomes are currently more aligned to managerial
contexts and satisfying quality assurance needs than to serving educational purposes.
The brief overview above highlights that the debates around learning outcomes are
well-established, but core issues within these debates still require further attention. One
such issue relates to the arguments put forward in support of learning outcomes, many of
which appear speculative with little or no supporting research evidence. The paper by
 Teaching in Higher Education 723

Adam (2008) is a good illustrative example. In his report about the use of learning
outcomes in Scottish higher education, he claimed that a learning outcomes approach:

focuses activity on the learning and away from the teacher. It promotes the idea of the teacher
as a facilitator or manager of the learning process and recognises that much learning takes
place outside the classroom without a teacher present. It suggests that students should be
actively involved in the planning and management of their own learning, progressively
taking more responsibility as he/she develops as an independent learner. (13)

In making this statement, Adam provided no evidence to support his view that learning
outcomes actually do promote these ideas to students and teachers or that students do
develop more responsibility and independence due to their interactions with learning
outcomes. He also provided no details about exactly how learning outcomes suggest these
ideas to students and teachers when critics, and perhaps logical thinking to some extent,
would infer that the exact opposite of these ideas could be posited. For example, learning
outcomes could result in more attention being focused on the teacher and what they teach
rather than less, particularly within the context of a growing consumerist agenda in higher
education. Some scholars indicate that the increasing positioning of the student as a
consumer in higher education conveys the message to students that education is a product
that can be bought in exchange for their rising tuition fees (Naidoo and Jamieson 2005;
Potts 2005). Consequently, there is a danger that students view learning less as their
responsibility and more as something that should be delivered to them by their teachers,
leading students to ask ‘what can I get?’ rather than ‘what should I do?’ (Lomas 2007;
Murphy 2011). In this consumerist context, learning outcomes could effectively become a
stick to beat teachers with; instead of conveying ideas of self-responsibility and
independence in learning to students, they could focus students’ attention on what they
believe they have or have not been taught, e.g. ‘I did not meet that learning outcome
because the teacher did not teach it’. Learning outcomes supposedly define what a student
should be able to do, know and understand at the end of a learning period (Moon 2005),
and they are usually recommended to be expressed from the learners’ perspective, i.e. ‘at
the end (of the unit/module/course) you will know/be able to do …’ (Jackson, Wisdom,
and Shaw 2003; Adam 2004). Lacking in this type of statement though seems to be the
message that Adam (2008) suggests is implicit within learning outcomes, i.e. that
students will be able to do or know something at the end of their course, but only if they
engage and take some responsibility for their own learning. From a consumerist
perspective, these ‘learner-centred’ statements could represent what students believe
will be delivered to them as their modules/courses progress. A consumerist context then
could undermine Adam’s (2008) belief that learning outcomes imply for students that
they should be planning and managing their own learning.
Similarly, issue could be taken with the view that learning outcomes help to promote
and recognise that ‘much learning takes place outside the classroom’ (Adam 2008, 13).
An immediate question is how exactly they do this, when many critics believe learning
outcomes actually narrow and restrict learning and endanger creative or emergent
learning (Buss 2008; Hussey and Smith 2008; Scott 2011). Again, Adam provided no
detail or supporting evidence to explain how learning outcomes do the things he suggests
they do, and as such his argument remains largely speculative.
This discussion and the use of Adam (2008) as an example highlight that there are
currently serious limitations in the learning outcomes literature. To date, there has been
724 S. Brooks et al.

much speculation about the benefits and the drawbacks of learning outcomes for students,
but, significantly, little attention has been given to researching and documenting how
students are actually viewing and using them. Therefore, the impact of learning outcomes
on students’ learning is still relatively unknown.
In this paper, we discuss the findings of an investigation into students’ views of
learning outcomes across three subject areas: Biological Sciences, English and Medicine.
Specifically, the students were asked if and when they use learning outcomes, how useful
they find them, whether learning outcomes support or restrict their learning, how able
they feel to judge the depth and level of learning required from learning outcomes and
how they would like to see learning outcomes used by their tutors and within their
modules, e.g. used more or less and made more prescriptive or more flexible. The
findings from this investigation, presented below, are being used to inform the develop-
ment of a learning resource that will help students to use learning outcomes more
effectively within their independent study.

Methodology
All undergraduate students in Biological Sciences, English and Medicine at the
University of Leicester, UK, were invited to complete a questionnaire that explored their
views about learning outcomes. The questionnaire was anonymous, and completion was
voluntary. The survey comprised of five-point Likert scale statements. For the majority of
Likert items, participants were asked to respond to each statement with either ‘strongly
agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’, according
to how much they supported the statement. Responses were anonymised and the
frequency of responses to questions was analysed and reported as ‘number of responses’
and ‘the percentage of the total number of responses’ for each question. Those who
completed the questionnaire were invited to take part in a focus group in order that further
in-depth data could be gained. Four focus groups were conducted involving 20 students.
Each subject area was represented, although the majority of students who agreed to
participate were from Medicine. The questionnaire design and focus group protocols were
approved by the University Research Ethics Committee.

Findings
In total, 918 responses were received giving the questionnaire an overall response rate of
33% (response rates per discipline were Biological Sciences, 41%; English, 25%; and
Medicine, 32%). To provide a global account of students’ views of learning outcomes,
data for all respondents were considered together. An analysis by discipline will be
presented elsewhere.
Sixty-four per cent of the questionnaire sample was female and 36% was male, which
is similar to the gender distribution across the three schools. The distribution of
respondents across the three subject disciplines was Biological Sciences 34%, English
19% and Medicine 47%. Forty-three per cent of the sample were first years, 17% were
second years and 22% were in their third year. Medicine is a five-year degree, so 18% of
our sample were also in their fourth or fifth years.
 Teaching in Higher Education 725

Questionnaire results
Eighty one per cent of respondents agreed (either agreed or strongly agreed) that learning
outcomes are useful learning aids, with only approximately 7% disagreeing (disagreeing
or strongly disagreeing) with this item (Table 1).
Just under half the sample (46%) indicated that they found learning outcomes more
useful as their courses progressed, and around the same number (49%) said they had
engaged more with them as they continued through their studies (Table 1). Interestingly,
of the 453 respondents who agreed with this latter item, 205 were first years. Whilst 21%
of the sample suggested they had not found learning outcomes more useful as their
courses have progressed, a slightly higher proportion (24%) indicated that they have not
been engaging more with them as they have proceeded in their studies (Table 1).
Proportionally, over twice as many third years as first years disagreed with this particular
item (32% and 14%, respectively).
A series of questions were posed to assess the impact of learning outcomes on student
learning. In answer to the question ‘when are learning outcomes most useful?’, nearly
half the sample (46%) responded ‘when revising’ (Figure 1). This was the most common
response for all year groups. Only just over a fifth indicated finding them most useful
either before (13%) or during (10%) teaching activities, with the majority of these
respondents (59%) being first years.
The issue of whether students are able to understand learning outcomes at the outset
of an element of teaching or require exposure to the content to fully understand the
learning outcome was explored. Almost half the participants (49%) agreed that learning
outcomes can only be fully understood at the end of a module when the total course or
module content is known. Just over a quarter (27%) disagreed with this view (Table 2).
When asked about breadth of learning, 18% of respondents reported that learning
outcomes can restrict the breadth of their learning (Table 2). Interestingly, this proportion
was similar across the first three-year groups (year 1, 18%; year 2, 15%; year 3, 16%). It
differed slightly for medical students in years 4–5 (year 4, 23%; year 5, 8%). Over a
quarter of the sample (27%) felt learning outcomes can overfragment their knowledge,
making it difficult for them to appreciate the overview of their subject (Table 2).
Paradoxically, the majority of respondents (66%) wanted to see learning outcomes
published in more or highly prescriptive detail (Figure 2). Again, the proportions of

Table 1. Student use of learning outcomes (n = 918).

Likert scale

Strongly Neither Strongly

agree Agree agree nor Disagree disagree
Questionnaire item (%) (%) disagree (%) (%) (%)

In general, I find learning outcomes 25 56 12 6 1

are a useful learning aid.
I have found that learning outcomes 9 37 33 17 4
have become more useful as I have
progressed through the course.
I have engaged more with learning 9 40 27 20 4
outcomes as the course has
progressed.
726 S. Brooks et al.

50

Percentage of the total number of responses

40

30

20

10

0
ity

ity

er
ity

ng

ev
tiv

tiv

tiv

si

N
ac

ac

vi
ac

re
ng

ng

ng

n
hi

hi

he
hi
ac

ac

ac

W
te

te

te
e

he
th

th

rt
re

g
in

te
fo

ur

Af
Be

Figure 1. Student views on when learning outcomes are most useful (n = 918).

students seeking publication of learning outcomes in more or highly prescriptive detail

were very similar across the year groups (year 1, 63%; year 2, 70%; year 3, 67%; year 4
(Medical), 65%; and year 5 (Medical), 70%).
When asked about depth of learning, 62% felt that learning outcomes specify the
level of learning required in each topic area either most or all of the time (Figure 3) and
59% agreed that learning outcomes specify the level of learning required to pass an
assessment (Table 2). In contrast, 12% felt that learning outcomes either never or not
very often specify the level of learning required for each topic area and 21% disagreed
that learning outcomes specify the level of learning required to pass an assessment.
Perhaps of more concern was the response from 30% of participants, indicating that
they are not always able to understand easily the depth of learning required by stated
learning outcomes (Table 2). Moreover, nearly 60% of respondents suggested that they
have found it possible to underestimate the level of learning required to pass an
assessment from published learning outcomes (Table 2); a pattern found across all the
year groups.
Finally, when students were asked to express their level of agreement with the
statement that learning outcomes are primarily for the use of the university in providing
evidence of teaching quality to outside reviewers, approximately one-third of the sample
(34%) agreed (Table 2). The majority (40%) expressed no view, while only just over a
quarter (26%) disagreed with this view.
 Teaching in Higher Education 727

Table 2. Impact of learning outcomes on student learning (n = 918).

Likert scale

Neither
Strongly agree nor Strongly
agree Agree disagree Disagree disagree
Questionnaire item (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

I consider that learning outcomes can 10 39 24 25 2

only be fully understood at the end
of a module when the total course/
module content is known.
I have found that published learning 3 15 30 46 6
outcomes can restrict the breadth of
my learning.
I consider that learning outcomes 4 23 32 37 4
overfragment knowledge required for
my qualification, making it more
difficult to appreciate the overview
of the subject.
I consider that learning outcomes 11 48 20 19 2
specify the level of learning required
to pass an assessment.
I am usually able to understand easily 5 46 19 24 6
the depth of learning required by
stated learning outcomes.
I have found that it is possible to 15 44 26 14 1
underestimate the level of learning
required to pass an assessment from
published learning outcomes.
I consider that learning outcomes are 7 27 40 24 2
primarily for the use of the university
in providing evidence of the teaching
quality to outside reviewers.

Focus group results

The focus group data confirmed and expanded many of the findings gained from the
questionnaire. Across each of the four focus groups, students indicated using learning
outcomes in a variety of ways and at various times throughout the course of their studies.
Some said they use the outcomes to structure their study and note-taking, and others
suggested using them as a kind of syllabus of their course. For these students, having
learning outcomes that are well-written is essential:

I use them religiously when I’m writing my notes and I feel a little bit lost if they’re rubbish.
Generally I don’t know what to do if they’re really vague. [Student (St) 4/Focus Group
(FG) 3]

As in the questionnaire data, most students indicated finding learning outcomes most
useful when they are revising:
728 S. Brooks et al.

50

Percentage of the total number of responses

40

30

20

10

il
il
d

il
ta
ta
he

ta
no

de
de

de
is

s
ol

la

e
ss

e
Ab

or

iv
le

ai

t
t

ip
in

de

in

cr
d

es
d
he

he

pr
is

sa

is
bl

ly
bl
e
Pu

gh
th

Pu

hi
t
ou

in
ab

d
he
in

is
d

bl
he

Pu
is
bl
Pu

Figure 2. Student views on the preferred level of detail in learning outcomes. Responses to the
questionnaire item ‘I would like to see learning outcomes’ (n = 918).

I find it useful [for] revision at the end of the year to go through each [outcome] to make sure
I understand each one and feel relatively confident in answering a question about it. That’s
when I mostly use them. (St2/FG1)

A major new theme emerging from the focus groups was the importance students
place on learning outcomes being used within and across modules/courses in a
consistent way. Some students identified modules in which they felt learning
outcomes were being used effectively, but many gave examples of where outcomes
were not being used well at all. Wording of and language use in drafting learning
outcomes were key factors here. Poorly drafted outcomes were seen to be more
detrimental than helpful to students:

[Sometimes a lecture] will have two learning outcomes that are very vague and you think
‘[oh] help me, what am I meant to do?’…you’re not really sure what you’re meant to have
taken from [the lecture]. (St4/FG3)
 Teaching in Higher Education 729

60

Percentage of the total number of responses

50

40

30

20

10

0
e

lly

r
e

e
tim

te
tim

ev
na

of

N
o
he

he

ry
si
ft

ve
ft

cc
lo

to

ot
O
Al

os

N
M

Figure 3. Student views on the extent to which learning outcomes specify the level of learning
required for each topic area in a course/module (n = 918).

[I would like learning outcomes that are] just well written. [And] written in English because
quite a lot of them just don’t make sense because they’re so badly written. That’s quite a big
thing for me. (St1/FG3)

Yet whilst some students spoke of effective learning outcomes being more specific rather
than vague, others were also keen to stress that they should retain a balance of helping to
guide students in their learning but not to restrict it:

I think [learning outcomes] are designed as a guide, but not to be a limit to what you do.
They shouldn’t stop you looking at more and reading more. (St1/FG3)

[Learning outcomes should be more specific] but still allow you to be open and still allow
you to do what you want. (St1/FG2)

There were some students though who felt too much focus is given to learning outcomes
at times on their courses, which can lead to a kind of blinkering effect:

[Interviewer] Do you think there’s too much focus on the learning outcomes then?

To a certain extent…it’s very focused, you get blinkered and you miss other stuff out.
(St3/FG4)

(St1) I think it needs to be emphasised that learning outcomes aren’t the be all and end all.
730 S. Brooks et al.

(St5) Yeah I was just about to say that as well. Because if students become too focused on
them, it’s going to be

(St1) [Jumps in] detrimental. (FG3)

There was a general consensus amongst the focus groups that learning outcomes do not
prescribe depth of learning. Overall, most students felt learning outcomes convey the
minimum amount of learning required to pass the course, and that their own further
independent study will help them to achieve deeper levels of learning and so gain higher
marks. One student in particular felt that it is not the role of learning outcomes to
prescribe depth of learning:

I don’t think they do define depth, especially in the second and third year. It’s up to you how
deep you want to go. (St2/FG1)

Students were asked in the focus group if they would find training useful on how to use
learning outcomes more effectively in their studies and what form(s) they thought this
training should take. Most believed some form of training would be useful, but that it
should be optional rather than compulsory. There was a general feeling that they did not
want anything ‘forced’ (St2/FG1) on them. Also commonly agreed upon was that any
kind of training should not conform to a ‘one size fits all’ approach but be flexible for use
by different students. The students recognised that they all use learning outcomes
differently to suit their own study styles, and they were keen to ensure any kind of
training package or product respects this.
Overall, as the questionnaire data also indicated, the majority of students did not want
to see learning outcomes abolished but used more effectively by their tutors and within
their courses so that they themselves could use them more effectively in their studies.

Discussion
To date, the extensive debates concerning the use of learning outcomes in higher
education have lacked evidence from students themselves concerning their views on and
use of learning outcomes in their studies. The data presented herein adds a new
dimension to these debates by providing insight from the undergraduate student’s
perspective on the utility of learning outcomes in directing their studies.
The findings presented provide support for contentions on both sides of the learning
outcomes debate. On the positive side, both the questionnaire and the focus group data
showed that the majority of students do see learning outcomes as useful learning aids and
that they use them in various ways to support their studies. By using learning outcomes as
guides for course syllabuses, note-taking or revision frameworks, it would seem that
learning outcomes do focus students on the learning they should be engaging in. In this
way, learning outcomes do appear to be supporting, to some extent, the ‘learning
paradigm’ that Maher (2004) and Adam (2008) outline.
On the other hand, there is much within the data to support criticisms made against
learning outcomes (Hussey and Smith 2002, 2003, 2008, 2010). Hussey and Smith (2003,
358) argued for the ‘spurious sense of precision and clarity’ imbued within learning
outcomes. Responses to both the questionnaire and the focus groups showed that learning
outcomes are often not clear or precise to students, largely due to poor wording by
lecturers, as reported by students. Moreover, the questionnaire revealed that many
 Teaching in Higher Education 731

students struggle to understand from their learning outcomes the depth of learning
required. Particularly surprising was the large proportion of respondents that reported that
they had found it possible to underestimate the level of learning required to pass an
assessment from published learning outcomes. What may be clear and objective to tutors,
due to their prior knowledge and experience, may be deceptive to students, particularly at
the beginning of a new learning activity or module. Indeed, some students indicated that
depth should not even be a role of learning outcomes as it could lead to a narrowing of
focus and preclude extended learning. This opinion echoes Buss’ (2008) view that
creative learning could be endangered by a too rigorous approach to learning outcomes.
This view was borne out to an extent, as some students reported that the focus on learning
outcomes can restrict their learning and lead to their knowledge being overfragmented. In
focus group discussions, students also recognised the dangers of restricted learning
occurring and so were keen to stress that learning outcomes should be used in such a way
as to be a guide for their learning, but not to be the sole focus of it. Instead, students
should still feel that their learning is open and flexible and that they are free to follow
their own ‘learning journey’ (Buss 2008, 304).
In general, the findings from this study support Hussey and Smith’s (2010) overall
argument that learning outcomes are not inherently antithetical to higher education, but
that they are not always employed currently in a way that best supports the type of
learning required in the higher education context. Students want to use learning outcomes
in their studies, and most want to see more alignment with them in their modules and
courses. The high proportion of students seeking more detailed or highly prescriptive
learning outcomes suggests that students are driven by assessment outcomes rather than
learning per se and provides evidence for the consumerist agenda mentioned previously.
It could be argued that, as higher fee-paying customers, part of what students want is a
detailed list of what they should learn to ensure that they pass at their targeted grade and
so get the required ‘return’ for their investment. In fact, this is not the whole story as our
students while indicating the desire to have more specific learning outcomes in their
modules or courses, encouragingly expressed that this should not be at the expense of a
narrowing of their learning.
Finally, it appeared that not all students were convinced that learning outcomes are
provided primarily for their learning benefit. Even though a substantial majority of
students indicated that they find learning outcomes useful, a third of our questionnaire
sample indicated that they consider them to be used primarily to provide evidence of
teaching quality to external parties. The lack of a clear perception of the primary purpose
of learning outcomes by students may reduce the engagement of some with them as a
core learning resource. This lack of clarity evokes the argument put forward by Hussey
and Smith (2003) that learning outcomes, as they are currently used, serve quality
assurance needs rather than educational purposes and suggests that work is still required
to establish with students that the primary function of learning outcomes is as a learning
resource.

Conclusion
In summary, the data indicate that our students want learning outcomes to remain a
central part of their learning experience and, indeed, that they would like them to become
a more effective part of it. Whilst they want learning outcomes to help guide their
learning, they do not want to be restricted by them, nor do they want to be confused by
732 S. Brooks et al.

poorly written or ambiguously worded outcomes. Our study has allowed us to enrich the
already existing literature concerning learning outcomes by giving a voice to those who
use them and for who they are supposedly created. We hope this voice will continue to
grow in the learning outcomes literature to inform the debate on how they can be used
most effectively to support the learning experiences of all our students.

Note
1. Searches were conducted on 30 July 2013.

References
Adam, S. 2004. “Using Learning Outcomes: A Consideration of the Nature, Role, Application and
Implications for European Education of Employing ‘Learning Outcomes’ at the Local, National
and International Levels.” Accessed June 11, 2013. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/
25725/0028779.pdf.
Adam, S. 2008. “Learning Outcomes Current Developments in Europe: Update on the Issues and
Applications of Learning Outcomes Associated with the Bologna Process.” Accessed June 11,
2013. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/BolognaSeminars/documents/Edin-
burgh/Edinburgh_Feb08_Adams.pdf.
Buss, D. 2008. “Secret Destinations.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45 (3):
303–308. doi:10.1080/14703290802176246.
Gosling, D. 2009. “David Gosling: Learning Outcomes Debate.” Accessed June 11, 2013. http://
www.davidgosling.net/userfiles/Learning%20Outcomes%20Debate(1).pdf.
Hussey, T., and P. Smith. 2002. “The Trouble with Learning Outcomes.” Active Learning in Higher
Education 3 (3): 220–233. doi:10.1177/1469787402003003003.
Hussey, T., and P. Smith. 2003. “The Uses of Learning Outcomes.” Teaching in Higher Education
8 (3): 357–368. doi:10.1080/13562510309399.
Hussey, T., and P. Smith. 2008. “Learning Outcomes: A Conceptual Analysis.” Teaching in Higher
Education 13 (1): 107–115. doi:10.1080/13562510701794159.
Hussey, T., and P. Smith. 2010. The Trouble with Higher Education: A Critical Examination of Our
Universities. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jackson, N., J. Wisdom, and M. Shaw. 2003. “Guide for Busy Academics: Using Learning
Outcomes to Design a Course and Assess Learning.” Accessed July 4, 2013. http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/id252_guide_for_busy_academics_using_
learning.
Lomas, L. 2007. “Are Students Customers? Perceptions of Academic Staff.” Quality in Higher
Education 13 (1): 31–44. doi:10.1080/13538320701272714.
Maher, A. 2004. “Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: Implications for Curriculum Design and
Student Learning.” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 3 (2): 46–54.
doi:10.3794/johlste.32.78.
Moon, J. 2005. “Linking Levels, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria.” Accessed June
11, 2013. http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/qualification/040701–02Linking_Levels_plus_ass_crit-
Moon.pdf.
Murphy, M. 2011. “Troubled by the Past: History, Identity and the University.” Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management 33 (5): 509–517. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2011.605225.
Naidoo, R., and I. Jamieson. 2005. “Empowering Participants or Corroding Learning? Towards a
Research Agenda on the Impact of Student Consumerism in Higher Education.” Journal of
Education Policy 20 (3): 267–281. doi:10.1080/02680930500108585.
Potts, M. 2005. “The Consumerist Subversion of Education.” Academic Questions 18 (3): 54–64.
doi:10.1007/s12129-005-1018-9.
Race, P. 1998. “How to … Give Students the Big Picture.” Times Higher Education, November 16.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/how-to-give-students-the-big-picture/109884.article.
Rees, C. E. 2004. “The Problem with Outcome-based Curricula in Medical Education: Insights
from Educational Theory.” Medical Education 38 (6): 593–598. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.
01793.x.
 Teaching in Higher Education 733

Roberts, G. 2008. “Learning Outcomes Based Higher Education: The Scottish Experience.”
Accessed June 11, 2013. http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Seminars/Edinburgh_Feb08_final_re-
port.pdf.
Scott, I. 2011. “The Learning Outcome in Higher Education: Time to Think Again?” Worcester
Journal of Learning and Teaching 5: 1–8.
Werquin, P. 2012. “The Missing Link to Connect Education and Employment: Recognition of
Non-formal and Informal Learning Outcomes.” Journal of Education and Work 25 (3): 259–278.
doi:10.1080/13639080.2012.687574.