Lynnette Mann
IST 511
Fall 2017
Literature Review
The quality of higher education has been an important topic and driving force for the
implementation of a process for student learning outcome (SLO) assessment. SLO assessment is
the gathering and use of evidence of student learning for data-driven decision-making and in
improving institutional performance and strengthening community accountability (Kuh, et al.,
2014). The emerging shift from teaching to learning and from inputs to outcomes (Caspersen,
Smeby, & Aamodt, 2017) has guiding the way for building relevant and measurable student
learning outcomes at the institutional, program and course levels.
A key component is intending to improve the quality of the learning outcome. Each
institution develops their individual assessment process. Generally, the process has four main
stages: course outline; create SLO and assessment; faculty implement and assess SLO; and as a
community, faculty review findings and adjust curriculum, objectives and SLOs. The SLO
assessment cycle provides a systematic approach to evaluating student performance based on a
set of clearly defined outcomes.
From the teaching perspective, course SLOs focus on the students rather than the delivery
method. Instructors can use the resulting data to measure student progress and adjust instruction
based on that progress. SLOs support deep learning for students (Driscoll & Wood, 2007), and a
means for the instructor to ascertain if a student has learned the content. Results of a study
supports the concept of deeper learning for students when they have a clear idea of the direction
and expectations of the course (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991).
Well-written SLO provide meaningful data for analysis. One of the characteristics of
well-written SLO is measurability – a benchmark or target – so that faculty can determine the
level of success. Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002), a well-established model for the levels
of cognitive domain, provides a framework to write SLO using appropriate cognitive level for
the material (Kidwell, Fisher, Braun, & Swanson, 2013). A list of measurable verbs have been
complied to align with the classifications that comprise Bloom’s Taxonomy (Stanny, 2016).
Research shows the effective use of taxonomies in the design and application of appropriate
assessment tasks must continue (Melguizo & Coates, 2017).
References
Caspersen, J., Smeby, J.-C., & Aamodt, P. O. (2017). Measuring learning outcomes. European
Journal of Education, 52(1), 20-30. doi:10.1111/ejed.12204
Driscoll, A., & Wood, S. (2007). Developing Outcomes-based Assessment for Learner-centered
Education. Sterling: Stylus.
Kennedy, D. (2006). Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: A Practical Guide. Cork: University
College Cork.
Kidwell, L. A., Fisher, D. G., Braun, R. L., & Swanson, D. L. (2013). Developing Learning
Objectives for Accounting Ethics Using Bloom's Taxonomy. Accounting Education: an
international journal, 22(1), 44-65.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Blooom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Kuh, G. D., Ikenberry, S. O., Jankowski, N., Cain, T. R., Ewell, & Hutchings, P. (2014). Using
Evidence of Student Learning to Improve Higher Education. John Wiley & Sons,
Incorporated. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/lib/csumb/[Link]?docID=1882234
Melguizo, T., & Coates, H. (2017, July-September). The Value of Assessing High Education
Student Learning Outcomes. AERA Open, 3(3), 1-2. doi:10.1177/2332858417715417
Stanny, C. J. (2016). Reevaluating Bloom's Taxonomy: What Measurable Verbs Can and Cannot
Say about Student Learning. Education Science, 6(4), 1-12.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of
learning. Higher Education, 22, 251-266.
