The Trouble with Learning Outcomes

Hussey, Trevor; Smith, Patrick

doi:10.1177/1469787402003003003

Cited by 184 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The standards themselves were problematic, too soft edged for a metrics based audit process, and in need of refine ment and clarification. In this regard, our study supports the argument of Hussey and Smith (2002) that Threshold Learning Outcomes are difficult to audit because of their broad nature. Problems with the wording of the standards sat around two major areas: ambiguous standards and compound standards.…”

Section: Trial Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

History on Trial: Evaluating Learning Outcomes through Audit and Accreditation in a National Standards Environment

Brawley

Clark²,

Dixon

et al. 2015

Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Trial Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

History on Trial: Evaluating Learning Outcomes through Audit and Accreditation in a National Standards Environment

Brawley

Clark²,

Dixon

et al. 2015

Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to Hussey and Smith (2002), teachers should be able to point to the products of learning. Norton (2009) calls for different assessment methods that can help students achieve desired learning goals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Agile Approach with Doctoral Dissertation Supervision

Tengberg¹

2015

IES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several research findings conclude that many doctoral students fail to complete their studies within the allowable time frame, in part because of problems related to the research and supervision process. Surveys show that most doctoral students are generally satisfied with their dissertation supervision. However, these surveys also reveal some students think their supervisors meet with them too infrequently, lack interest in their dissertation topics, and provide insufficient practical assistance. Furthermore, many countries will soon witness a large turnover in the labour market as people near retirement. Because this is also the case at many universities and colleges, the expectation is that there will be many teaching and research vacancies. Therefore, many new doctoral students who plan to enter academia after earning their doctoral degrees are needed. In responding to these complaints, this conceptual paper examines the use of the agile approach-which has achieved recognition and approval in software development-in the doctoral dissertation process. In the teaching/learning sphere, the agile approach can be used in iterative meetings between doctoral student and supervisor for dissertation planning, direction, and evaluation. The focus of the iterations, the so-called Sprints, is on communication and feedback throughout the entire process. The paper is based in theories on teaching/learning and on the author's personal experience with the agile approach. Use of the agile approach, which can decrease the time required for doctoral studies, may thus increase the number of graduates with doctoral degrees. The paper makes suggestions for practical implementation of the agile approach.

show abstract

“…There has been criticism of the move to outcomes focussed education in medicine, with concerns being raised that it disempowers students and reduces the flexibility and responsiveness of teaching (Hussey & Smith 2002, Rees 2004. Pre-determined ILOs deliver most value if limited to key concepts that allow variation from group to group and student determination of their own learning needs.…”

Section: Clear Ilosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching non-clinical topics: lessons from a public health module for medical students

Whittaker¹,

Gr²

2016

MedEdPublish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA new public health teaching for medical students in year four was introduced. This paper evaluates the planning and implementation of the first year of delivery. MethodsKern et al's six step approach to curriculum development was used as an evaluation framework:• Problem identification• Needs assessment• Goals and objectives • Educational strategies• Implementation • Evaluation and feedbackThe delivery of the programme was assessed by direct observation of teaching and the end of year teaching review meeting, plus data from student feedback questionnaires. ResultsProblem identification was based on student feedback and gap analysis of the medical school curriculum against the standards set out in the GMC's Outcomes for Graduates. The public health learning needs of the medical students were examined from the perspectives of the students, the medical school and the NHS. Goals and objectives were chosen using the Outcomes for Graduates set out by the GMC as a basis. The module used a mixture of face-to-face and online teaching using a range of pedagogic approaches. The teaching was very interactive throughout and emphasised the links between public health and clinical medicine. Students completed anonymous feedback questionnaires which were overwhelmingly positive. The student feedback, plus feedback from the student representative, was used to inform changes in the programme implemented the following academic year. ConclusionThis new public health module has successfully integrated into the clinical curriculum. Lessons learnt from the first year of implementation are transferable to the delivery of other non-clinical topics.Keywords: Public Health, Blended learning, Curriculum development, Behavioural and Social Science BackgroundPublic health is a small sub-specialty of medicine, making up fewer than two per cent of doctors on the UK's General Medical Council (GMC) specialist register (GMC, 2016). However, the core principles of public health are relevant to all doctors, and are an important part of the undergraduate medical curriculum (GMC, 2009). In Manchester Medical School, public health is taught in years one and two via small group work, topic specific lectures and Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) incorporated into the Problem Based Learning (PBL) cases. Previous to 2014 public health was not taught as part of the core curriculum beyond year two, but a limited number of students could access public health teaching by choosing optional attachments in years three or five. In September 2014 delivery public health in year four began consisting of two days of mandatory face-to-face teaching plus on-line resources. Recommendations for the delivery of public health teaching from the literatureThe medical education literature recommends that effective public health teaching should; be based on clear ILOs, be integrated with the clinical curriculum, be interactive, include exposure to public health specialist role models and be updated in response to feedback. Clear ILOs 1.Clear ILOs help stude...

show abstract

The Trouble with Learning Outcomes

Cited by 184 publications

References 5 publications

History on Trial: Evaluating Learning Outcomes through Audit and Accreditation in a National Standards Environment

History on Trial: Evaluating Learning Outcomes through Audit and Accreditation in a National Standards Environment

The Agile Approach with Doctoral Dissertation Supervision

Teaching non-clinical topics: lessons from a public health module for medical students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About