Writing Subject Intended Learning Outcomes (SILOs

Writing Subject
Intended Learning
Outcomes
by
Ms. Sheryl B. Satorre
In-Service Training 2013
University of Cebu – Main Campus
May 28 – 31, 2013
(iamsbsatorre@gmail.com)

Outline:
1. Understanding Intended Learning Outcomes
2. FAQs about Intended Learning Outcomes
3. Constructive Alignment
4. Toolkit for Writing Subject Intended Learning
Outcomes
5. Steps in Writing Subject Intended Learning
Outcomes
6. DOs and DONTs
7. Workshop # 1 – Writing SILOs
8. Presentation of Output
6/2/2013Preparedby:SBSatorre
2

Understanding Intended Learning
Outcomes
• Learning Outcomes are specific statements of
what students should know and be able to do as
a result of learning (Morss and Murray, 2005)
• Learning outcomes are statements of what is
expected that a student will be able to DO as a
result of a learning activity….(Jenkins and
Unwin).
• Learning outcomes are an explicit description of
what a learner should know, understand and be
able to do as a result of learning. (Learning and
Teaching Institute, Sheffield Hallam University)
3

• Learning outcomes are explicit statements of
what we want our students to know,
understand or to be able to do as a result of
completing our courses. (Univ. New South
Wales, Australia)
• ―Learning outcomes are statements that
specify what learners will know or be able to
do as a result of a learning activity.
Outcomes are usually expressed as
knowledge, skills or attitudes‖. (American
Association of Law Libraries).
4

Learning outcomes are statements of what a
student should know, understand and/or be able to
demonstrate after completion of a process of
learning.
• Learning outcomes must not simply be a ―wish list‖ of
what a student is capable of doing on completion of the
learning activity.
• Learning outcomes must be simply and clearly
described.
• Learning outcomes must be capable of being validly
assessed.
Working Definition
Therefore,
5

Intended Learning Outcomes
Students will
DO WHAT (how)
6

FAQs about Intended Learning
Outcomes
7

• FAQ # 1: What are the levels of ILOs?
1. Program ILOs
• What are the intended learning outcomes for the
students enrolled in the course or program?
2. Subject ILOs
• What are the intended learning outcomes for
students taking a particular subject at a particular
stage of the course or program?
8

• FAQ # 2: Are ILOs the same with
Objectives?
• Objectives are for teachers.
• ILO’s are for students.
• FAQ # 3: Why do we need level outcomes?
• So that everyone is aware of what the students will
know and be able to do by the end of the degree
program
• FAQ # 4: Who sets ILOs?
• Faculty who teach in the degree program
• Experts in the discipline
9

• FAQ # 5: Where do ILOs come from?
• Other colleges or universities
• Professional associations
• General education
• Accreditation agency
• Program alumni
• Employers
• Advisory board
• Masters or doctoral programs
• Online surveys of experts
• FAQ # 6: How many ILOs do we need?
• No magic number
• Most programs have at about 4 - 8
10

• FAQ # 7: Who selects the ILOs?
• The entire faculty in the program
• Approved by all faculty and a chair
• FAQ # 8:How do we decide on ILOs?
• Faculty retreat
• Regular faculty meetings
• Expert facilitator
• Hold assessment workshop
• FAQ # 9:How are ILOs useful?
• University catalogue
• Promotional materials
11

FAQ # 10: Why write ILOs?
Writing ILOs leads to:
• A focus on student learning
• Clarity
• Overall vision and progression
• Realism
• Clear connections between goals, teaching, and
assessment
• The process of educational development in the
academy
• Better quality assurance
12

Constructive Alignment
Constructive Alignment, a term coined by
John Biggs (Biggs, 1999), is one of the most
influential ideas in higher education.
It is the underpinning concept behind the
current requirements for programme
specification, declarations of Intended
Learning Outcomes (ILOs) and assessment
criteria, and the use of criterion based
assessment.
13

There are two parts to constructive alignment:
1. Students construct meaning from what they do to
learn.
2. The teacher aligns the planned learning activities
with the learning outcomes.
The basic premise of the whole system is that the
curriculum is designed so that the learning activities and
assessment tasks are aligned with the learning
outcomes that are intended in the course. This means
that the system is consistent.
ILO:
What the
student
has to learn?
Teaching and
Learning:
Engaging the
student in the
verb in the ILO
Assessment:
How well
the student
has met the
ILO?
14

Toolkit for Writing Subject
Intended Learning Outcomes
(SILOs)
1. Content to be taught
2. Kind of Knowledge to be taught
3. Levels of Understanding or Performance
the students are expected to achieve for
the different topics
15

Distinguish the kind of
KNOWLEDGE you want.
• Declarative knowledge:
• Knowing about things.
• Knowledge we can declare to someone in
writing or telling.
• Functioning knowledge:
• Knowledge we put to work in solving a
physics problem, analyzing a case study,
designing a building, making an argument,
writing an essay.
16

Levels of Understanding or
Performance
• Bloom‘s Taxonomy
• Revised Bloom‘s Taxonomy
• SOLO Taxonomy
17

Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Dr. Benjamin Bloom , 1965)
1. Knowledge
2. Comprehension
3. Application
4.Analysis
5. Synthesis
6. Evaluation
Higher Order Thinking
Skills
18

1. Knowledge - ability to recall or remember
facts without necessarily understanding
them
Arrange, collect, define, describe,
duplicate, enumerate, examine, find,
identify, label, list, memorise, name,
order, outline, present, quote, recall,
recognise, recollect, record,
recount, relate, repeat, reproduce,
show, state, tabulate, tell
19

2. Comprehension - ability to understand
and interpret learned information
Associate, change, clarify, classify,
construct, contrast, convert, decode,
defend, describe, differentiate,
discriminate, discuss, distinguish,
estimate, explain, express, extend,
generalise, identify, illustrate,
indicate, infer, interpret, locate,
predict, recognise, report, restate,
review, select, solve, translate.
20

3. Application - ability to use learned
material in new situations, e.g. put ideas and
concepts to work in solving problems
Apply, assess, calculate, change,
choose, complete, compute, construct,
demonstrate, develop, discover,
dramatise, employ, examine,
experiment, find, illustrate, interpret,
manipulate, modify, operate, organise,
practice, predict, prepare, produce,
relate, schedule, select, show, sketch,
solve, transfer, use
21

4. Analysis - ability to break down
information into its components, e.g. look
for inter-relationships and ideas
(understanding of organisational structure)
Analyse, appraise, arrange, break down,
calculate, categorise, classify, compare,
connect, contrast, criticise, debate, deduce,
determine, differentiate, discriminate,
distinguish, divide, examine, experiment,
identify, illustrate, infer, inspect,
investigate, order, outline, point out,
question, relate, separate, sub-divide, test
22

5. Synthesis - ability to put parts together
Argue, arrange, assemble, categorise,
collect, combine, compile, compose,
construct, create, design, develop,
devise, establish, explain, formulate,
generalise, generate, integrate, invent,
make, manage, modify, organise,
originate, plan, prepare, propose,
rearrange, reconstruct, relate,
reorganise, revise, rewrite, set up,
summarise
23

6. Evaluation - ability to judge value of
material for a given purpose
Appraise, ascertain, argue, assess,
attach, choose, compare,
conclude, contrast, convince,
criticise, decide, defend,
discriminate, explain, evaluate,
interpret, judge, justify, measure,
predict, rate, recommend, relate,
resolve, revise, score, summarise,
support, validate, value
24

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy:
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
Higher
Order
Thinking
25

1. Remembering - recall
previous learned information
Define, describe, identify, know,
label, list, match, name, outline,
recall, recognize, reproduce,
select, state
26

2. Understanding - Comprehending the
meaning, translation, interpolation, and
interpretation of instructions and problems.
State a problem in one's own words.
comprehend, convert, defend,
distinguish, estimate, explain,
extend, generalize, give an
example, infer, interpret,
paraphrase, predict, rewrite,
summarize, translate
27

3. Applying - Use a concept in a new
situation or unprompted use of an
abstraction.Applies what was learned in the
classroom into novel situations in the work
place.
apply, change, compute, construct,
demonstrate, discover,
manipulate, modify, operates
predict, prepare, produce, relate,
show, solve, use
28

4. Analyzing - Separates material or
concepts into component parts so that its
organizational structure may be understood.
Distinguishes between facts and inferences.
analyze, break down, compare,
contrast, diagram, deconstruct,
differentiate, discriminate, distinguish,
identify, illustrate, infer, outline, relate,
select, separate
29

5. Evaluating -Make judgments
about the value of ideas or
materials.
appraise, compare, conclude,
contrast, criticize, critique, defend,
describe, discriminate, evaluate,
explain, interpret, justify, relate,
summarize, support
30

6. Creating - Builds a structure or pattern
from diverse elements. Put parts together to
form a whole, with emphasis on creating a
new meaning or structure
categorize, combine, compile,
compose, create, devise, design,
explain, generate, modify, organize,
plan, rearrange, reconstruct, relate,
reorganize, revise, rewrite,
summarize, tell, write
31

Alternative to Bloom: Structure of
the Observed Learning Outcome
(SOLO) Taxonomy
• by John Biggs and K. Collins in 1982
• It is a model that describes levels of
increasing complexity in a learner's
understanding of subjects.
• It aids both trainers and learners in
understanding the learning process.
32

Levels of SOLO Taxonomy
1. Pre-structural
• The learner doesn't understand the
lesson and uses a much too simple
means of going about it—the learner is
unsure about the lesson or subject.
2. Uni-structural
• The learner's response only focuses on
one relevant aspect—the learner has
only a basic concept about the subject.
33

Levels of SOLO Taxonomy (cont.)
3. Multi-structural
• The learner's response focuses on
several relevant aspects but they
are treated independently—the
learner has several concepts
about the subject but they are
disconnected. Assessment of this
level is primarily quantitative.
34

Levels of SOLO Taxonomy (cont.)
4. Relational
• The different aspects have become
integrated into a coherent whole—the learner
has mastered the complexity of the subject
by being able to join all the parts together.
This level is what is normally meant by an
adequate understanding of a subject.
5. Extended Abstract
• The previous integrated whole may be
conceptualized at a higher level of
abstraction and generalized to a new topic or
area—the learner is now able to create new
ideas based on her mastery of the subject.
35

36

Appropriate Verbs for Different Levels of SOLO Taxonomy
37
Surface Understanding Deep Understanding

Prepare
Write
Revise
Verify
Communicate
Steps in
Writing the
Subject ILO’s
38

PREPARE
39

1. Decide the content to be taught.
2. Decide what kind of knowledge is to
be taught -- declarative or functioning.
3. Decide the levels of understanding or
performance the students are
expected to achieve for the different
topics.
40

WRITE
41

4. Formulate subject intended
learning outcomes.
42
Remember the Formula:
Verb Object Criterion SILO

REVISE
43

5. Differentiate between the wording in
the subject goals or objectives and
the wording in the learning
outcomes.
44

A goal/objective, for example, describes, that
the student will be given the opportunity to
develop his/her understanding of, acquire
knowledge or awareness of, etc. It can describe
the intentions of the course, focus on main
content, and show how the course relates to
different parts of a program.
A learning outcome at subject level describes
what the student should be able to
demonstrate the results and how the student
should show the attainment of these goals.
45

6. Make SILOs clear and
observable.
46
A clear learning outcome consists of:
Active verbs that express what the student is
expected to be able to do at the end of the course.
Words or phrases that describe the material, the
area, subject, etc. which the student works with or
is the result of the educational experience.
If wished, words or sentences that describe how
the knowledge should be used (individually, in
summary, in detail, with the help of, orally, written,
etc.)

• As an example, the verb “to understand” can
be made more concrete by substituting it with
a verb which the student can perform:
reproduce, interpret, clarify, reformulate,
propose, account for, translate, describe in
your own words, exemplify, illustrate, classify,
categorize, arrange, differentiate, summarize,
generalize, explain, specify, draw conclusions,
predict, confirm, demonstrate, compare,
contrast, map, pair, choose, describe
commonalities between different phenomena,
appreciate, report, judge, or defend
47

Example: Learning outcomes that
are not observable:
After completing the course, the student
should be able to:
 Understand how laws and guidelines for
social planning are applied.
 Read academic texts about the
scholarship of teaching
48

Example: Rewritten learning
outcomes that are observable
After finalizing the course, the student should
be able to:
 Explain the relationship between applied
legislation and the process of urban
planning.
 Review relevant scientific texts about the
scholarship of teaching
49

7. Make a distinction between
learning activities and results.
The learning outcomes should not describe
how the outcome is achieved, but detail the
results of the various learning activities which
occur during the course.
50

Example: Learning outcomes that describe
the activity and not the result
be able to:
 Have visited at least three university
teaching sessions and have observed one
session with a pre-defined aim in mind.
51

Example: Reformulated learning outcome
that describes the result of the activity
be able to:
 Categorize and analyze observed
teaching and learning activities to
achieve a pre-determined aim, while at
the same time drawing conclusions
about his or her own personal reactions
as a teacher
52

8. Clarify vague learning
outcomes.
Example: A vague learning outcome
The student should be able to:
 Carry out a company audit
Example: Reformulate learning outcomes so that they
specify content and how knowledge will be used.
 Carry out a company audit from the
perspective of an economic theory,
justifying and explaining his or her choice
of method
53

9. Limit your SILOs. Have a
workable number of ILOs.
• Combine and limit the number of learning
outcomes to about 7 or 8.
• The presence of too many outcomes indicates
that the outcomes may be too detailed.
• What is the overall result that must be
evaluated?
• Higher levels of ILOs may subsume some of
the lower level ones.
54

Example: Redundant learning
outcomes
 Define known concepts of second-
language acquisition (SLA)
 Use concepts of second-language
acquisition (SLA) to judge the competence
of second language teachers in written and
spoken Swedish
55

Example: The redundant learning outcome
should be deleted. It is already included in
the other outcome.
 Use concepts about second-language
acquisition (SLA) to judge the competence
of second- language teachers in written
and spoken Swedish.
56

VERIFY
57

10.Check if the learning outcomes can
be assessed. Sometimes it is
necessary to reformulate the
outcomes because they are
unrealistic or impossible to test.
58

11.Estimate the approximate student
workload required to attain the
learning outcomes and complete
assessment.
• Consider the time spent on instruction and
the total study-time needed for both
individual and group work.
• Remember that too much material often
leads to cramming and limits the space for
analysis and critical thinking.
59

12. Check if all SILOs are aligned
with the Student Outcomes.
• Ensure that all SILOs are attuned with the
Student Outcomes of the college.
• Ensure a clear understanding and
agreement of the ILOs within the teaching
team and other relevant parties.
60

COMMUNICATE
61

13.Communicate the subject ILOs to
the students, teachers, and other
stakeholders. Make sure that all
SILOs are clearly understood by
them.
62

DOs
• It is vital that learning outcomes are clearly
written so that they are understood by
students, colleagues and external
examiners.
• When writing learning outcomes it may be
helpful to you if you focus on what you
expect students to be able to demonstrate
upon completion of the module or program.
• It is standard practice to list the learning
outcomes using a phrase like ―On successful
completion of this module, students should
be able to:‖ [list of learning outcomes]
63

DOs
• Avoid complicated sentences. If necessary
use one than one sentence to ensure clarity.
• General recommendation: 4 – 8 learning
outcomes per subject.
• ―The key word is DO and the key need in
drafting learning outcomes is to use active
verbs‖. (Jenkins and Unwin, Fry et al.)
64

DON‘Ts
• ―They [Learning Outcomes] are statements
describing observable behaviour and therefore
must use ‗action verbs‘‖… Words like
―appreciate‖ and ―understand‖ do not help
students because there are so many
interpretations of their meaning. It is more
transparent and helpful to be specific about
expectations (Morss and Murray).
• Avoid verbs like ―know‖, ―understand‖, ―be
familiar with‖, ―be exposed to‖ (Osters and Tiu)
• ―Try to avoid ambiguous verbs such as
―understand‖, ―know‖, ―be aware‖ and
―appreciate‖. (Sheffield Hallam Guide).
65

DON‘Ts
• ―Care should be taken in using words such as
‗understand‘ and ‗know‘ if you cannot be sure
that students will understand what it means to
know or understand in a given context‖ (Univ
NSW).
• Certain verbs are unclear and subject to
different interpretations in terms of what action
they are specifying…… These types of verbs
should be avoided: know, become aware of,
appreciate, learn, understand, become familiar
with. (American Association of Law Libraries).
66

Some Vague SILO verbs
• Appreciate
• Become aware of
• Familiarize with
• Know
• Learn about
• Recognize
• Understand
67

Example: SILOs for
Computer Programming 3
(Object-Oriented
Programming)
68

Steps 1 - 3
1. Introduction to Java
2. Data types and Variables
3. Operators and
Expressions
4. Control Flow Statements
5. Methods
6. Object-Oriented
Programming
7. Objects and Classes
8. Using Java Objects
9. Java Application Project
Functional Application
Functional Analysis
Functional Synthesis
Functional Evaluation
Kind of knowledge
Level of
Understanding or
Performance
69

At the end of the semester, the students should be able
to:
SILO1: compile syntactically and semantically correct
Java-based programs using basic elements such as data
types, operators and expressions
SILO2: design syntactically and semantically correct
Java-based programs using appropriate control structures
and modules
SILO3: develop Java-based programs using Object-
Oriented approach
SILO4: defend a Java-based application project that
integrates process-oriented and object-oriented
approaches
70

Subject
ILOs
Content Kind of
Knowledge
Levels of
understanding or
performance
SILO1 1. Introduction to Java
2. Data types and
Variables
3. Operators and
Expression
Functional Application
SILO2 4. Control Flow
Statements
5. Methods
Functional Analysis
SILO3 6. Object-Oriented
Programming
7. Objects and
Classes
8. Using Java Objects
Functional Synthesis
SILO4 9. Java Application
Project
Functional Evaluation
71

Student Outcomes Subject ILOs
A, B, C SILO1
A, B, C SILO2
A, B, C, I SILO3
A, B, C, I , J SILO4
Student Outcomes:
A – ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to
the discipline
B – ability to analyse and identify and define the computing requirements
appropriate to its solution
C – ability to design, implement and evaluate a computer-based system,
process, component, or program to meet desired needs
I – ability to use current technical concepts, skills and tools necessary for
computing practice
J – ability to use and apply current technical concepts and practices in the
core information technologies
72

Workshop # 1 – Writing
SILO‘s
Part I. Refer to your existing syllabus, and do the
following:
1. review the existing objectives in relation to
content, kind of knowledge and levels of
understanding / performance.
2. identify any areas requiring revision.
3. rewrite the subject objectives in ILO format,
4. consider if the ILOs are of equal importance.
73

Part II. Construct the following tables.
Subject
ILOs
Content Kind of
Knowledge
Levels of
understanding or
performance
Table 1 – Writing SILO’s
Student Outcomes Subject ILO‘s
Table 2 – Alignment of Student Outcomes and Subject ILO’s
74

Part III.
• Present your output to the group.
• Be sure to jot down any issues that you would like to
bring up for discussion at the workshop.
75

References:• NHU. Writing Intended Learning Outcomes. Version 1, 2006-10-11
• 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. Report on United Kingdom
Bologna Seminar, July 2004, Herriot-Watt University.
• Allan, J (1996) Learning Outcomes in Higher Education. Studies in Higher
Education, 21 (1) 93 - 108
• Boam, R. and Sparrow, P. (Eds) (1992) Designing and achieving competency,
London: McGraw-Hill
• Boni A and Lozano F (2007) The generic competences: an opportunity for ethical
learning in the European convergence in higher education. Higher Education 54:
819 – 831.
• Baume, D. (1999). Specifying Aims and Learning Outcomes Milton Keynes: Open
University.
• Biggs J, (2003) Aligning Teaching and Assessing to Course Objectives. Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations. University of
Aveiro, 13 – 17 April 2003
• Biggs, J. (2005) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2003). Wiltshire: Open
University Press ISBN 0335211682
• Bingham, J. (1999) Guide to Developing Learning Outcomes, The Learning and
Teaching Institute Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
• Black, P and William, D (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through
Classroom Assessment, London: Kings College.
• Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M., D., Furst, E.J, Hill, W. and Krathwohl, D. (1956) Taxonomy of
educational objectives. Volume I: The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
• Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
Volume II : The Affective Domain.. New York: McKay.
• Brown, R.B. (1993) ‗Meta-competence: a recipe for reframing the competence debate‘,
Personnel Review, 22(6): 25-36.
• Brown, R.B. (1994) ‗Reframing the competency debate: management knowledge and meta-
competence in graduate education‘, Management Learning, 25(2): 289-99.
• Burgoyne, J. (1988a) Competency Based Approaches to Management Development, Lancaster:
Centre for the Study of Management Learning.
76

• Capel, S, Leask, M and Turner, T (1997). Learning to Teach in the Secondary School. London:
Routledge.
• Chambers, D.W. (1994). Competencies: a new view of becoming a dentist. J Dent Education
(58) 342-345
• Cockerill, T. (1989) ‗The kind of competence for rapid change‘, Personnel Management,
September, 52-56
• Council of Europe, Seminar on Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process, Lisbon, 2002.
Available at: http://www.coe.int
• Dave, R H (1975) Developing and Writing Behavioural Objectives (R J Armstrong, ed.)
Educational Innovators Press
• Donnelly, R and Fitzmaurice, M. (2005). Designing Modules for Learning . In: Emerging Issues in
the Practice of University Learning and Teaching, O‘Neill, G et al. Dublin : AISHE.
• Dooley, K. E., Lindner, J. R., Dooley, L. M. and Alagaraja, M. (2004). Behaviorally anchored
competencies: evaluation tool for training via distance., Human Resource Development
International, 7(3): 315-332.
• Elkin, G. (1990) ‗Competency-based human resource development‘, Industrial and Commercial
Training, 22(4): 20-25
• ECTS Users‘ Guide (2005) Brussels: Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Available
online at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/socrates/ects/doc/guide_en.pdf
• ECTS Users‘ Guide (2009). [available online]
• European Commission (2008) European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning
• Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., Marshall (2000) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education. London: Kogan Page.
• Fung M, Lee W and Wong S () A new measure of generic competencies.
• Hartel, .R.W. and E.A. Foegeding (2004). Learning: Objectives, Competencies, or Outcomes.
Journal of Food Science Education, (3) 69 – 70.
• Hartle, F. (1995) How to re-engineer your Performance Management Process, London: Kogan
Page
• Hendry, C., Arthur, M.B. and Jones, A.M. (1995) Strategy through People: Adaptation and
Learning in the Small-Medium Enterprise, London: Routledge.
• HETAC (2006) Explanatory Guidelines on the Direct Application to HETAC for a Named Award.
Dublin: Higher Education and Training Awards Council.
• Huba, M.E. & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses. Shifting
the focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Jarvis, P. (1985) The sociology of adult and continuing education. London: Croom Helm.
• Jenkins, A. and Unwin, D. How to write learning outcomes. See the following URL:
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/format/outcomes.html
77

• Kendall Phillips L. (1994) The Continuing Education Guide: the CEU and Other Professional
Development Criteria. Iowa: Hunt Publishing.
• Kennedy D, Hyland A and Ryan N (2006) Writing and using Learning Outcomes, Bologna
Handbook, Implementing Bologna in your Institution, C3.4-1, 1 – 30.
• Kennedy, D (2007) Writing and Using Learning Outcomes – A Practical Guide. Quality Promotion
Unit, University College Cork. Available from www.NAIRTL.ie
• Kennedy D, Hyland A and Ryan N (2009) Learning Outcomes and Competences, Bologna
Handbook, Introducing Bologna Objectives and Tools, B2.3-3, 1 – 18.
• McBeath, G. (1990) Practical Management Development: Strategies for Management
Resourcing and Development in the 1990s, Oxford: Blackwell
• Messick, S. (1975) The standard problem: meaning and values in measurement and evaluation.
American Psychologist October 1975 : 955-966
• Messick, S. (1982) Abilities and Knowledge in Educational Achievement Testing: The
Assessment of Dynamic Cognitive Structures. Princeton: New Jersey: Education Testing Service.
• Miller, C, Hoggan, J., Pringle, S. and West, C. (1988) Credit Where Credit‘s Due. Report of the
Accreditation of Work-based Learning Project. Glasgow. SCOTVEC.
• Mitriani, A., Dalziel, M and Fitt, D. (1992) Competency Based Human Resource Management,
London: Kogan Page.
• Morss, K and Murray R (2005) Teaching at University. London: Sage Publications ISBN
1412902975
• Neary, M. (2002). Curriculum studies in post-compulsory and adult education. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
• Oliver et al (2008). Curriculum structure: principles and strategy. European Journal of Dental Education. (12) 74 –
84.
• Ramsden, P (2005) Learning to teach in Higher Education, London: Routledge.
• Shuell, T. J. (1986) Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411 – 436.
• Smith, B. (1993) ‗Building managers from the inside out: competency based action learning‘, Journal of
Management Development, 12, 1: 43-8
• Tate, W. (1995) Developing Managerial Competence: A Critical Guide to Methods and Materials, London: Gower.
• Training Agency (1989) Development of Accessible Standards for National Certification Guidance: Note No. 1
Sheffield Employment Department/Training Agency.
• Van der Klink, M and Boon, J. (2002) Competencies: The triumph of a fuzzy concept. International Journal Human
Resources Development and Management, 3(2), 125 – 137.
• Winterton J, Delamare-Le Deist F and Stringfellow E (2005) Typology of knowledge, skills and competences:
clarification of the concept and prototype. CEDEFORP: Tolouse. Available at:
http://www.ecotec.com/europeaninventory/publications/method/CEDEFOP_typology.pdf
• Wolf, A. (1989) Can competence and knowledge mix? In J. W Burke (ed). Competency-based Education and
Training. Lewes: Falmer Press.
• Woodruffle, C. (1991). Competent by any other name., Personnel Management, September, 30-31.
78

Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks (2004). Report on ―A Framework for
Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area‖.
Bologna Process Stocktaking London 2007. Available at:
www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/WGR2007/Stocktaking_report2007.p
df
DeSeCo projet : http://www.deseco.admin.ch/
ECTS Users‘ Guide (2005) Brussels: Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Available
online at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/socrates/ects/doc/guide_en.pdf
ECTS Key Features: http://www.bologna.msmt.cz/files/ECTSKeyFeatures.pdf
National Qualifications Frameworks Development and Certification – Report from Bologna Working
Group on Qualifications Frameworks. May 2007
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/Working_group_reports_2007.ht
m
Framework website: www.nfq.ie
National Qualifications Authority of Ireland: www.nqai.ie
OECD; http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe: http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/
Verification of Compatibility of Irish National Framework of Qualifications with the Framework for
Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area - Summary of Final Report – November
2006
http://www.nqai.ie/en/International/VerificationofCompatibilityofIrishNationalFrameworkofQualificatio
ns/File,1797,en.doc
www.bologna.ie
79

Thank you   
80

Writing Subject Intended Learning Outcomes (SILOs

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Writing Subject Intended Learning Outcomes (SILOs

Similar to Writing Subject Intended Learning Outcomes (SILOs (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Writing Subject Intended Learning Outcomes (SILOs