学科学习成果:设计资源和质量保证机制

Susan M. Jones, Elizabeth D. Johnson, J. Kelder
{"title":"学科学习成果:设计资源和质量保证机制","authors":"Susan M. Jones, Elizabeth D. Johnson, J. Kelder","doi":"10.59197/asrhe.v2i1.5577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of learning outcome statements underpins contemporary university course design, yet their impact in practice is unclear. Threshold learning outcomes (TLOs) for Australian bachelor degrees in science were published in the Science Standards Statement in 2011. This paper reports how and where the Science TLOs have been adopted by science faculties across Australian universities as a case study in the broad-scale application of discipline learning outcomes in generalist degrees. The analysis draws on four data sources: a desktop survey of published course learning outcomes for science degrees; an online survey of learning and teaching leaders; semi-structured interviews with a sub-set of those leaders; and a citation analysis. The results show that the majority of Australian science faculties have embraced the Science TLOs both as a reference point for quality assurance and as the basis of curriculum design or redevelopment. The TLOs are perceived as a trusted external reference point, endorsed by the Australian Council of Deans of Science, and aligned to national legislative requirements. Some challenges remain, including staff resistance to change and a perception of curriculum reform as a ‘top-down’ process. Positional leaders clearly have a pivotal role as active brokers to lead positive change. However, in terms of national standards and quality assurance, we conclude that disciplinary learning outcome statements such as the Science TLOs build a bridge between intent and practice in curriculum reform.","PeriodicalId":158792,"journal":{"name":"Advancing Scholarship and Research in Higher Education","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discipline learning outcomes: Design resource and quality assurance mechanism\",\"authors\":\"Susan M. Jones, Elizabeth D. Johnson, J. Kelder\",\"doi\":\"10.59197/asrhe.v2i1.5577\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of learning outcome statements underpins contemporary university course design, yet their impact in practice is unclear. Threshold learning outcomes (TLOs) for Australian bachelor degrees in science were published in the Science Standards Statement in 2011. This paper reports how and where the Science TLOs have been adopted by science faculties across Australian universities as a case study in the broad-scale application of discipline learning outcomes in generalist degrees. The analysis draws on four data sources: a desktop survey of published course learning outcomes for science degrees; an online survey of learning and teaching leaders; semi-structured interviews with a sub-set of those leaders; and a citation analysis. The results show that the majority of Australian science faculties have embraced the Science TLOs both as a reference point for quality assurance and as the basis of curriculum design or redevelopment. The TLOs are perceived as a trusted external reference point, endorsed by the Australian Council of Deans of Science, and aligned to national legislative requirements. Some challenges remain, including staff resistance to change and a perception of curriculum reform as a ‘top-down’ process. Positional leaders clearly have a pivotal role as active brokers to lead positive change. However, in terms of national standards and quality assurance, we conclude that disciplinary learning outcome statements such as the Science TLOs build a bridge between intent and practice in curriculum reform.\",\"PeriodicalId\":158792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advancing Scholarship and Research in Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advancing Scholarship and Research in Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59197/asrhe.v2i1.5577\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advancing Scholarship and Research in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59197/asrhe.v2i1.5577","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学习成果陈述的使用是当代大学课程设计的基础,但它们在实践中的影响尚不清楚。2011年,澳大利亚科学学士学位的门槛学习成果(TLOs)在《科学标准声明》中公布。本文报告了科学TLOs如何以及在哪里被澳大利亚各大学的科学院系采用,作为在通才学位中广泛应用学科学习成果的案例研究。该分析利用了四个数据来源:对已发表的科学学位课程学习成果的桌面调查;一项关于学习和教学领导者的在线调查;对这些领导者的一部分进行半结构化访谈;还有引文分析。结果表明,大多数澳大利亚科学学院都接受了科学tlo,将其作为质量保证的参考点和课程设计或重新开发的基础。TLOs被认为是一个值得信赖的外部参考点,得到了澳大利亚科学学院院长委员会的认可,并与国家立法要求保持一致。一些挑战仍然存在,包括员工对变革的抵制,以及课程改革被认为是一个“自上而下”的过程。位置型领导者作为积极的中间人,在领导积极变革方面显然发挥着关键作用。然而,就国家标准和质量保证而言,我们得出结论,学科学习成果声明,如科学TLOs,在课程改革的意图和实践之间架起了一座桥梁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discipline learning outcomes: Design resource and quality assurance mechanism
The use of learning outcome statements underpins contemporary university course design, yet their impact in practice is unclear. Threshold learning outcomes (TLOs) for Australian bachelor degrees in science were published in the Science Standards Statement in 2011. This paper reports how and where the Science TLOs have been adopted by science faculties across Australian universities as a case study in the broad-scale application of discipline learning outcomes in generalist degrees. The analysis draws on four data sources: a desktop survey of published course learning outcomes for science degrees; an online survey of learning and teaching leaders; semi-structured interviews with a sub-set of those leaders; and a citation analysis. The results show that the majority of Australian science faculties have embraced the Science TLOs both as a reference point for quality assurance and as the basis of curriculum design or redevelopment. The TLOs are perceived as a trusted external reference point, endorsed by the Australian Council of Deans of Science, and aligned to national legislative requirements. Some challenges remain, including staff resistance to change and a perception of curriculum reform as a ‘top-down’ process. Positional leaders clearly have a pivotal role as active brokers to lead positive change. However, in terms of national standards and quality assurance, we conclude that disciplinary learning outcome statements such as the Science TLOs build a bridge between intent and practice in curriculum reform.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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