Guidance on writing aims and intended learning
outcomes
Dr Peter Kahn
Educational Development, Centre for Lifelong Learning
University of Liverpool
3rd November 2010
Introduction
A clear and appropriate statement of aims and intended learning outcomes forms an important
element in programme design, in quality assurance and in focusing student learning. It is thus
important that aims and intended learning outcomes are written in ways that facilitate these
processes. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance on the scope and construction of
aims and intended learning outcomes, and on links with the wider programme.
The paper concentrates on aspects of writing aims and learning outcomes that
experience from reviewing documentation and from working with colleagues indicates are
often most problematic. Thus while we introduce how to write aims and learning outcomes,
we focus in more detail on the following:
broadening the scope of aims;
indicating level in an intended learning outcome.
In addition, we consider in Appendix 1 the relationship between intended learning outcomes
and standards of performance. A consideration of this relationship enables us to clarify
whether intended learning outcomes should be set for the typical or threshold student, and
also to help ascertain the level of detail that is required. Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 provide
guidance on both possible skills and other attributes, and verbs to be included in intended
learning outcomes.
A broader approach to aims
A programme aim is a general statement about the purpose of the programme. Aims are thus
primarily concerned with what the programme hopes to achieve, and they are typically
written in terms of teaching intention rather than the learning of the student. Note, however,
that pre-requisites for running the programme should not be recast as aims, as is the case for
the following 'aims':
to employ an appropriate variety of teaching and assessment methods to meet the
programme's aims and learning outcomes;
to use learning resources effectively and efficiently to meet the programme's aims and
learning outcomes.
While the aims of a programme will primarily concern the students themselves, wider
aims may also be relevant. Indeed, it is often only by considering a wide range of aims that
the real distinctiveness of a programme is seen to emerge. An appreciation of the
distinctiveness of the programme is useful in programme design and in conveying to students
and others its unique features. It will thus be helpful to consider several types of aim as
indicated in Table 1. There is, evidently, overlap between the categories in Table 1 and it is
further possible to set aims that incorporate more than one of these categories, as in the
following example:
to enhance students' capacity to engage in extended project work, both on an independent
basis and in collaboration with their peers, and thereby to prepare students for further
academic study and employment.
Type of aim
Student-based
Department or Subject
based
Employer-based
Society-based
Examples of aims
To explore the central features of the discipline; to attract
students who will benefit from studying in a researchenriched environment; to open access to the study of a
range of specialist areas within the discipline; to focus on
the contested nature of knowledge within the discipline.
To provide a seed-bed for ideas that can be exploited in
research programmes within the department; to provide
the disciplinary community with new members; to
constitute an example of best practice to other
departments in how to teach the discipline.
To meet the requirements of potential employers in a
specific sector.
To positively impact on the social fabric of the local
community; to widen participation within the body of
students studying the discipline; to contribute to society
through the development of a sense of civic responsibility
in the students on the programme.
Table 1, Types of aim
Writing learning outcomes
An intended learning outcome is a concise description of what a student will have learnt at
the end of some learning process. One of the main advantages to stating the intended learning
outcomes (simply now referred as learning outcomes) from a course of study is the way in
which this allows one explicitly to consider the ways in which the goals for student learning
are constructively aligned with both the methods used for teaching and supporting learning
and the assessment on the programme.
Given their key role in helping to shape the educational process, it will be useful to
review key aspects of writing learning outcomes. This review will also provide an effective
foundation for the next section, which looks at what is perhaps the most challenging aspect of
writing a learning outcome; namely indicating the level of the outcome.
A review of how to write learning outcomes
A learning outcome typically consists of sentence that begins with a phrase such as ‘At the
end of this programme it is expected that you will be able to’, which is then followed by three
elements (examples for these aspects of a learning outcomes are provided in Table 2):
an active verb (often with an associated adverb);
an object of the verb (indicating on what the learner is acting);
a phrase that indicates the context or provides a condition.
Verb
Critically evaluate
Recognise
Object
new technical,
regulatory and policy
developments in law
any risks or safety
aspects
Context
especially in relation
to notions of justice1
that may be involved
in the operation of
computing
equipment within a
given context
Table 2, Examples of the three elements of a learning outcome
The actual content of each learning outcome is, of course, shaped by a number of
actors. We thus highlight here some of the more important issues that need to be addressed:
1
Categories of outcome — In general, learning outcomes describe intended learning in
terms of knowledge, understanding, skills and other attributes. In particular, the
University's template for a Programme Specification requests information on knowledge
and understanding, and on intellectual, practical and transferable skills (see Appendix 2
for a list of various skills.)
Balanced outcomes — There should be an appropriate balance between the subject,
personal and professional learning outcomes.
Different views — It is possible to view a programme in three different ways: a collection
of course units; a number of years; and an entire programme. Viewing a programme in
these ways can help to ensure coherence between the different course units, across the
various years of the programme and within the programme as a whole. It is therefore
useful to state the learning that is intended to result from each course unit (course unit
outcomes), from each year of the programme and from the programme as a whole
(programme outcomes).
Realistic – Learning outcomes must be achievable within the constraints of time and other
resources, and the learning and teaching context provided.
Developmental – Learning outcomes should be developed in part using feedback from
previous learners (i.e. about what they identify and value).
Understandable – The context and meaning of learning outcomes should be understood
easily by interested parties, e.g. colleagues, learners and employers.
This example, and other examples, are taken from documentation submitted within the University for
quality assurance purposes.
Process versus product – Learning outcomes should not simply constitute a statement of
the process by which the learning takes place. For instance, you will want to develop in
students 'the ability to plan and implement a research project' rather than simply get them
to 'have some experience of research'.
Indicating level in learning outcomes
When writing learning outcomes that concern knowledge and understanding, staff often
simply provide a statement of the content that is covered. This, at least, is the perspective that
a review of quality assurance documentation provides. Take for instance the following
outcome:
Knowledge and understanding of specific disciplines including periodontology,
preventive dentistry, dental, dental radiography and orthodontics.
Does the understanding have to be critical in any sense or connected to relevant areas of
professional practice? The outcome as stated relies, in effect, on a set of accepted norms for
the kind of understanding that is expected within the discipline in question. Indeed, with a few
stylistic changes, a syllabus can therefore suffice for a statement of learning outcomes.
Learning outcomes are redundant.
Learning outcomes, however, offer a significant advantage over a syllabus by
providing an explicit indication of the abilities that students actually should be learning.
Where the nature of the intended learning is clearly spelled out learning outcomes can, for
instance, be of use in more directly considering the appropriateness of specific teaching
methods, and also in framing appropriate assessment tasks, criteria and feedback on student
learning (see for instance Biggs, 1999). In addition, learning outcomes can assist in personal
development planning for students, providing a basis for planning, activity and reviewing. A
syllabus cannot easily serve all of these functions. Indeed, basing teaching simply around a
syllabus tends to lead to viewing teaching as a fixed activity that is never adapted to the
specific abilities that students are trying to master. It is worth noting that a clear match should
be evident in a Programme Specification between the programme outcomes, the methods
employed for teaching and supporting learning, and the assessment. What is clear,
furthermore, is that an explicit indication of level2 is needed if a learning outcome is to fully
specify the intended learning. Such an indication of level actually helps to set the expected
standard that must be achieved.
In disciplines where knowledge is organised on a strongly hierarchical basis,
however, one might still argue that it should not matter whether one favours a syllabus or a
statement of learning outcomes. After all, in such disciplines the level of understanding one
can argue that the level is at least implicitly indicated within a syllabus. Take for instance the
following outcome:
At the end of the programme, students will have an understanding of how accounting
and information systems informs and is informed by economic, organisational, social
and political contexts.
Here one could argue that the level is implicitly provided by the sophistication of the subject
matter. But this still fails to articulate the nature of the understanding that is required. Does
the understanding need to be systematic, original or critical? Is there any need to recognise
2
We use the term 'level' here to indicate a hierarchical categorisation of learning outcomes: this
categorisation is closely related to the year of study. We follow the National Qualifications Framework
which spells out the following levels: Certificate (year 1); Intermediate (year 2); Honours (year 3);
Masters; Doctoral.
the interplay between the specified contexts? We still need to go beyond an implicit
indication of level if a learning outcome is to help shape student learning.
Further ways to specify level
How then can one take advantage of the additional possibilities for specifying level that are
afforded by a set of learning outcomes? The approach suggested here is, first of all, to specify
the nature of the understanding that is sought. Perhaps the most useful categorisation for
different types of understanding is that provided by Bloom (1964). He views understanding
according to the following hierarchy:
knowledge; comprehension; application; analysis; synthesis; evaluation.
(See Appendix 3 for verbs to use in learning outcomes that reflect this hierarchy.) Are we
looking for a systematic understanding, or will a haphazard grasp suffice? Similarly, the
intended understanding may be critical, conceptual or so on.
It is also relatively easy to fail to indicate level when making statements about skills.
When dealing with intellectual skills and practical skills, then the disciplinary context may, as
above, provide a partial indication of the level, but even this will not hold where transferable
skills are concerned. For instance, one might consider the following learning outcome:
You will be able to work in a team.
But students are able to work in a team by the end of primary school! As stated, this outcome
provides little help in designing an appropriate programme. It therefore again helps to specify
more clearly the actual nature of the ability in question.
Such a more detailed consideration of the ability in question also needs to take
account of a number of further considerations. Level may be provided in part by framing
learning outcomes that require students to have mastered the interplay between two or more
abilities. We might therefore consider developing the above outcome about working in a
team to the as follows:
You will be able to give an oral presentation as part of a team, based around the
earlier joint solution of a problem.
However, even indicating such interplay will often fail fully to articulate the nature of the
learning that occurs. In particular, it is important to take into account the context in which
these abilities are developed. We can consider the following elements that help to make up
this context:
the extent of autonomy involved;
the inherent complexity of the context;
the degree of originality.
A learning outcome will clearly be more challenging if the student is expected to attain it
without detailed guidance from a lecturer. Similarly, the context that frames the learning will
also influence the level of difficulty. An outcome that requires students to adapt their response
as the situation changes in an unpredictable fashion is clearly more challenging than one in
which the demands placed on the student remains constant. Meanwhile, the degree of
originality that is involved in carrying out some task will again affect its level. This is more
obvious towards Masters and PhD level, providing a key distinguishing factor at these levels
from earlier levels. We might thus develop our outcome related to team-work to the
following:
You will be able to give an oral presentation in a team to specialist and non-specialist
audiences, critically evaluating both the team's performance and your own
contribution to the team.
Taken together, all of these above considerations combine to indicate the level of an
outcome, giving arise to a explicit hierarchy within any set of learning outcomes. The features
that indicate level are summarised within Table 3.
Such an explicit focus on level does, of course, not dispense with the need for the
context that is provided by the subject. Judgements against national standards, for instance,
are difficult to make without reference to specific subject matter. Hence the National
Qualifications Framework (see Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA),
2001), especially at undergraduate level serves to provide a context for different subject
benchmark statements (see QAA, 2002) rather than to provide a primary point of reference.
What is apparent, however, is that without an explicit indication of level learning outcomes
are far less useful.
Factor
Words and phrases to help introduce factor
Nature of ability
Coherent knowledge; systematic comprehension; application to
unseen problem; conceptual analysis; wide-ranging synthesis;
critical evaluation; generate alternative scenarios.
Combination of abilities
Interplay between; in light of; taking into account the impact of;
while also; an integrated approach; at the same time as.
Autonomy
Within a structured and managed environment; some self
direction, awareness of own learning; initiate and carry out
projects; manage or advance own learning; monitoring progress;
personal responsibility; autonomous planning; evaluating your
own performance; enhancing your skills.
Context
Specialist and non–specialist audiences; variable demands; use
scholarly reviews and primary sources; effectively adapting to
new demands; unpredictable situations; incomplete data;
appreciate uncertainty; identify a range of solutions; managing
dynamically complex work.
Originality
Established techniques; standard methods of solution; current
problems; devise novel approaches; recent research; creative
responses; informed by the forefront of the discipline; at the
forefront of discipline; innovations in practice; extending the
theoretical basis; limits of knowledge; originality in the
application of knowledge; creation and interpretation of new
knowledge; meriting publication.
Table 3, Factors that contribute to an indication of level in a learning outcome,
beyond a statement of the subject matter in question
Conclusion
The Higher Education sector as a whole has now accepted aims and intended learning
outcomes as integral elements of good practice in teaching and the support of learning.
However, if intended learning outcomes in particular are created simply for quality assurance
purposes, and are not drawn upon in designing effective programmes and enabling student
learning, then it is understandable that they are seen as a burden. This paper, in particular, has
sought to explore ways in which learning outcomes need to be specified if they are to be
useful more widely, contributing to the design of both teaching and assessment.
Appendix 1: Learning outcomes and standards of performance
The relationship between learning outcomes and student performance is a complex one. It is,
of course, true that some students will be able to achieve the specified learning outcomes
whereas others will not, even at a minimal standard of performance. Meanwhile, many
students will learn more than is specified within the learning outcome. Thus, in an overall
sense, a statement of learning outcomes does provide a coarse way of indicating a standard of
performance. Yet at the same time, a learning outcome is not designed to fully specify student
achievement. Two students may achieve the same learning outcome, but to differing extents.
A tension is thus present, one which is often resolved by simply ignoring the relevance of
learning outcomes to assessment. We will explore in this appendix a number of ways in
which learning outcomes can contribute to making judgements about student performance. In
the process we will clarify two important issues that concern writing learning outcomes:
whether the learning outcomes reflect either the threshold requirements that all students are
expected to achieve or the expected achievement of a typical or modal learner; and the level
of detail that is required.
Threshold or modal?
If a learning outcome states that students 'will be able to do something on completion of the
course', then this suggests that a threshold outcome is in play. Even here, however, the
language may hide a modal outcome. Introducing the idea of that it is 'expected that students
will be able to do something on completion of a course' makes the modal character of a
learning outcome more explicit.
Unless there are good reasons to specify learning outcomes in threshold terms (e.g. in
certain professional disciplines) it would usually be expected that they would be framed in
modal terms. This will make it clear that our programmes exceed those of the benchmark
statements. However, one might wish to use threshold learning outcomes to help shape grade
descriptors that are positive, say, even when describing performance for a Third Class
honours degree.
Assessment criteria and grade descriptors
The relationship between learning outcomes and student performance is clearest when
considering both assessment criteria and grade descriptors. A set of assessment criteria
provides a framework in which judgement can be made about a student's performance. As an
example we can take one of the assessment criteria from a Postgraduate Certificate in
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education:
Extent to which the work is analytical in style and approach, with critical
understanding and interpretation.
Furthermore, a clear match will be evident between any assessment criteria and the learning
outcomes. Indeed, the statement of learning outcomes may well be used to help decide upon
the criteria. We can see, for instance, the correspondence between the above example and one
of the related programme outcomes:
Ability to engage in self-directed analysis and synthesis of teaching practices, and
evaluation of the impact of that practice upon the students concerned.
An assessment process, however, usually results in specifying a student's performance at one
of a number of grades. One typically thinks of the usual degree classifications or of a
percentage scale. The assessment criteria will thus usually lead to a set of grade descriptors,
or in certain cases a marking scheme or model answer. Such further specification of the
standard against which a student's work is judged are, of course, necessary required to ensure
the reliability of the assessment. It is worth emphasising here that grade descriptors are likely
to incorporate the following two elements:
adjectives that describe the degree to which a particular criteria has been demonstrated,
e.g. good, fully, partially, excellent. (Note: these adjectives will not normally figure in the
statement of a learning outcome, as they refer more directly to the standard of
performance against the learning outcome)
aspects of student performance that only figure at the higher or lower grades of
performance. For instance a learning outcome at modal level may incorporate elements
that are not present within the work of a failing candidate or a First Class performance
may introduce a new element that goes beyond achievement at modal level.
In particular, there will be a clear match between threshold outcomes and grade
descriptors for a Third Class degree and between modal outcomes and the border between
Upper and Lower Seconds. It is worth comparing the programme outcome given above with
the grade descriptors that refer to the ability to engage in analysis:
(0-39%) Limited grasp of the relevant ideas and issues; (40-49%) Grasp of the
relevant ideas and issues is evident, although limited; (50-59%) Analytical in style
and approach at times, although descriptive and prescriptive for the greater part; (6069%) Analytical in style and approach, with some critical interpretation; (70-100%)
Highly analytical in style and approach, with critical understanding and
interpretation.3
The comparison suggests strongly that the programme outcome has been set at modal rather
than threshold level. Finally, it is worth noting that a match should also be evident between
marking schemes and the actual learning outcomes and any associated assessment criteria,
although the links will typically be less explicit.
In conclusion, one might also think of a continuum of the ways in which learning
outcomes and assessment criteria seek to articulate student performance. Learning outcomes
in which level is clearly articulated provide a coarser approach while assessment criteria and
grade descriptors provide the basis for a more fine-grained approach.
Appendix 2: Skills and other attributes
3
Note that one often includes finer divisions of firsts, e.g. 70-79% and fails, e.g. 30-39%.
Intellectual skills
Critical thinking – capacity to abstract, analyse and make critical judgement
Problem solving – ability to solve problems in an efficient and effective manner, drawing on
problem solving strategies as relevant
Problem posing – ability to frame problems in a fashion that is amenable to their solution.
Synthesis and analysis of data and information
Planning, conducting and report on research project/dissertation
Critical reflection and evaluation
Translation
Expression – able to make a reasoned argument for a particular point of view
Decision-Making – able to draw reasoned conclusions
Practical skills
Planning and executing safely a series of experiments or independent research
Using library, electronic and online resources
Using reporting skills
Mapping and modelling
Audit production
Speaking, reading and writing a foreign language at near-native proficiency
Treating patients in certain defined clinical procedures
Peer review – able to comment on the performance or work of a peer, identifying strengths
and making constructive suggestions for improvement where appropriate
Transferable skills
Information Retrieval – ability independently to gather, sift, synthesise and organise material
from various sources (including library, electronic and online resources), and to critically
evaluate its significance.
Presentation – capacity to make oral presentations, using appropriate media for a target
audience
Numeracy – ability to appreciate issues of selection, accuracy, uncertainty and approximation
with number)
Literacy – the capacity both to make written presentations using appropriate language for a
target population and to collect and integrate evidence to formulate and test a hypothesis
Computer Literacy – ability to use word processing, database, spreadsheet and presentation
software and the use of the Internet
Networking
Teamwork – recognising and identifying views of others and working constructively with
them
Negotiation - understand group dynamics and intercultural backgrounds in the use of
negotiating skills to reach objectives
Time Management – ability to schedule tasks in order of importance
Applying Subject Knowledge – use of discipline specific knowledge in everyday situations
Research – ability to plan and implement an effective research project.
Improving own Learning – ability to improve one's own learning through planning,
monitoring, critical reflection, evaluate and adapt strategies for one's learning
Other attributes
Willingness to update knowledge – understand the need for Life Long Learning
Listening – ability to listen effectively and make a constructive contribution to a discussion
Commercial Awareness – working effectively within externally or poorly defined constraints
as in a business environment
Initiative – able to take action unprompted and assume responsibility
Creativity – able to be innovative and apply lateral thinking in problem solving and decision
making
Stress Tolerance – able to use personal resources effectively to meet challenges
Self-confident – able to maintain independence of thought and be self-reliant
Independence – capacity for self-discipline, motivation and diligence
Self-management – capacity for self-appraisal, reflection and time management
Adaptability – ability to respond positively to changing circumstances
Self-awareness – awareness of own strengths and weaknesses and to be able to work as part
of a multidisciplinary team
Ethical appreciation – a willingness to ascertain the ethical implications of proposed courses
of actions or situations and to take the necessary steps to ensure that result from this analysis
Professionalism
Appendix 3: Verbs for use in Learning Outcomes
Use of the following verbs can help in the construction of learning outcomes:
Knowledge: What do you expect learners to know?
define; state; list; outline
Comprehension: How do learners convey what they have understood?
explain; identify; discuss; describe; interpret
Application: How do learners use a theory or information in a new situation?
demonstrate; apply; operate; employ; illustrate.
Analysis: How do learners break down material and ideas into constituent parts to show how
they relate to each other and how they are organised?
Distinguish; appraise; debate; solve; differentiate; contrast; examine; investigate;
calculate; question; analyse; test; criticise.
Synthesis: How do learners work with elements and combine them in a way that was not there
before?
devise; manage; design; organise; create; plan; construct; formulate.
Evaluation: How do learners construct an argument, compare opposing arguments, make
judgments?
Judge; evaluate; appraise; criticise; assess.
Acknowledgements
This paper has been informed by Bingham (1999), discussions within a Working Group at the
University of Manchester on aims and intended learning outcomes, and the University of
Manchester 's Student Satisfaction Survey (2003). The original version of this paper was
developed by the author for the Academic Framework and Regulation Project at the
University of Manchester, 2003.
References
Biggs J (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Society for Research into Higher
Education/Open University Press, Buckingham.
Bingham R (1999) Learning Outcomes: a guide, Learning and Teaching Institute, Sheffield
Hallam University, Sheffield.
Bloom B S (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, David McKay.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2001) The framework for higher
education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, QAA, Gloucester
[Online, accessed 7 May 2003] http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/nqf/ewni2001/contents.htm
QAA (2002) Benchmarking academic standards, QAA, Gloucester [Online, accessed 7 May
2003] http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/benchmark/index.htm
Further Reading
Biggs J (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Kogan Page, London