Outcomes based engineering education. I. Theory and practice in the derivation of "outcomes". A European historical perspective

J. Heywood
{"title":"Outcomes based engineering education. I. Theory and practice in the derivation of \"outcomes\". A European historical perspective","authors":"J. Heywood","doi":"10.1109/FIE.1997.644823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A brief account of the origins of the \"outcomes\" movement in education is given. It is concluded that there is no real difference between the objectives movement of yesterday and the \"outcomes\" movement of today. Differences between the approaches of Mager and the authors of The Taxonomy of Eductional Objectives are outlined. Some limitations of The Taxonomy from an engineering perspective are illustrated. An alternative approach to the derivation of \"outcomes\", which is based on task analyses of the work engineers do, is described. One of the problems with the The Taxonomy is its semantic structure which many teachers find difficult to internalize. A method enabling teachers to develop their own semantic structure and at the same time acquire ownership is given in this paper it is further argued noted that just as teachers need to \"own\" their \"outcomes\" so to do students. There are many sources of \"outcomes\". Apart from surveys of alumni and task analyses there are valuable sources to be found in learning theory (e.g. how concepts and principles are learnt, cognitive development and higher order thinking). The principle lessons of the past are that curriculum designers tend to generate too many \"outcomes\" which constrain both teachers and students. These cause surface approaches to learning. In order to obtain study in depth it is essential to allow time for assimilation.","PeriodicalId":135969,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.1997.644823","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

A brief account of the origins of the "outcomes" movement in education is given. It is concluded that there is no real difference between the objectives movement of yesterday and the "outcomes" movement of today. Differences between the approaches of Mager and the authors of The Taxonomy of Eductional Objectives are outlined. Some limitations of The Taxonomy from an engineering perspective are illustrated. An alternative approach to the derivation of "outcomes", which is based on task analyses of the work engineers do, is described. One of the problems with the The Taxonomy is its semantic structure which many teachers find difficult to internalize. A method enabling teachers to develop their own semantic structure and at the same time acquire ownership is given in this paper it is further argued noted that just as teachers need to "own" their "outcomes" so to do students. There are many sources of "outcomes". Apart from surveys of alumni and task analyses there are valuable sources to be found in learning theory (e.g. how concepts and principles are learnt, cognitive development and higher order thinking). The principle lessons of the past are that curriculum designers tend to generate too many "outcomes" which constrain both teachers and students. These cause surface approaches to learning. In order to obtain study in depth it is essential to allow time for assimilation.
基于成果的工程教育。一、“成果”推导的理论与实践。欧洲历史透视
简要介绍了教育中“结果”运动的起源。结论是,昨天的目标运动和今天的“结果”运动之间没有真正的区别。概述了Mager的方法与《教育目标分类学》作者之间的差异。从工程的角度说明了《分类法》的一些局限性。描述了一种派生“结果”的替代方法,该方法基于工程师所做的工作的任务分析。《分类法》存在的一个问题是它的语义结构,许多教师认为它难以内化。本文给出了一种方法,使教师能够发展自己的语义结构,同时获得所有权,并进一步指出,正如教师需要“拥有”他们的“成果”一样,学生也需要“拥有”。“结果”的来源有很多。除了校友调查和任务分析外,在学习理论(例如如何学习概念和原则,认知发展和高阶思维)中也可以找到有价值的来源。过去的主要教训是,课程设计者倾向于产生太多的“结果”,这束缚了教师和学生。这些导致了表面的学习方法。为了获得深入的学习,必须留出时间来吸收。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信