Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Alternative names
Publications (4 of 4) Show all publications
Erikson, M. G. & Erikson, M. (2018). Learning outcomes and critical thinking – good intentions in conflict. Studies in Higher Education
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Learning outcomes and critical thinking – good intentions in conflict
2018 (English)In: Studies in Higher Education, ISSN 0307-5079, E-ISSN 1470-174XArticle in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The notion of critical thinking and its theoretical complexity are used as a case for an epistemological critique of the model of intended learning outcomes. The conclusion is that three problems of learning outcomes, previously discussed in the literature, become even more challenging when seen in the light of critical thinking. The first problem concerns interpretations, as the use of learning outcomes is dependent on advanced but implicit interpretative frameworks. The second is the problem of educational goals that cannot be expressed through learning outcomes, and the third is the risk that learning outcomes may establish a ceiling for student ambitions. It is argued that the example of critical thinking shows the seriousness of the epistemological critique of learning outcomes and how the use of learning outcomes can divert teachers’ and students’ attention away from important goals.

Keywords
Critical thinking, learning outcomes, purposes of education, student experience, curriculum
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Teacher Education and Education Work
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-14764 (URN)10.1080/03075079.2018.1486813 (DOI)2-s2.0-85048742355 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2018-07-17 Created: 2018-07-17 Last updated: 2018-07-30Bibliographically approved
Erikson, M. G. & Erikson, M. (2016). Quality Hazards in the Learning Outcome Model. In: : . Paper presented at 11th European Quality Assurance Forum, Ljubljana, Slovenia, November 17–19, 2016,.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Quality Hazards in the Learning Outcome Model
2016 (English)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Core academic principles and purposes of higher education can be expressed in such terms as students’ personal development or academic identity. These are important in the Bologna process, for example in relation to life-long learning. At the same time, policies about learning outcomes regulate much of the teachers’ everyday practice. The paper analyse the extent to which this combination of perspectives can be a quality hazard, and it is argued that two particular areas can be problematic. The first is that desirable effects of higher education that cannot be expressed as learning outcomes are at risk of being neglected. The second is that learning outcomes can become a roof, restricting students’ ambitions and their entire outlook on what higher education is supposed to be. How these risks can be taken into account when formulating quality criteria is discussed in relation to the responsibilities of students, teachers and institutional management.

National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-11188 (URN)
Conference
11th European Quality Assurance Forum, Ljubljana, Slovenia, November 17–19, 2016,
Available from: 2016-11-29 Created: 2016-11-29 Last updated: 2016-11-30Bibliographically approved
Erikson, M., Erikson, M. G. & Punzi, E. (2016). Student responses to a reflexive course evaluation. Reflective Practice, 17(6), 663-675
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Student responses to a reflexive course evaluation
2016 (English)In: Reflective Practice, ISSN 1462-3943, E-ISSN 1470-1103, Vol. 17, no 6, p. 663-675Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Simple surveys are the predominant tool for course evaluations in most universities, but their validity has been questioned. They have been criticized for being a ritual way of complying with administrative regulations rather than a way of improving educational quality. Moreover, there is often a focus on student satisfaction, where the complexity of learning processes and the development of learner identities are lost. As an alternative approach, a qualitative course evaluation was tested that consisted of a single question: What could have been done in this course in order to better support your learning? Twenty-one second-year psychology students completed the evaluation at the end of a course. They provided rich answers describing learning activities and communication, and they described both teachers and students as agents. Going beyond merely reporting possible improvements, the students saw their learning processes in a context of academic demands and social mechanisms. It is argued that qualitative course evaluations can provide information about students’ understanding of their own learning that is difficult to uncover in a traditional survey. It is concluded that qualitative course evaluations would support the development of a student learner identity and help create a role for students as co-producers of knowledge.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2016
Keywords
Course evaluations, course development, learning processes, student identity, student transition
National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-11187 (URN)10.1080/14623943.2016.1206877 (DOI)000384681300001 ()2-s2.0-84979680895 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2016-11-29 Created: 2016-11-29 Last updated: 2017-11-29Bibliographically approved
Erikson, M. G., Erlandson, P. & Erikson, M. (2015). Academic misconduct in teaching portfolios. International journal for academic development, 20(4), 345-354
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Academic misconduct in teaching portfolios
2015 (English)In: International journal for academic development, ISSN 1360-144X, E-ISSN 1470-1324, Vol. 20, no 4, p. 345-354Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Within academia, clear and standardised communication is vital. From this point of departure, we discuss the trustworthiness of teaching portfolios when used in assessment. Here, misconduct and fraud are discussed in terms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, following the literature on research fraud. We argue that the portfolio’s unclear academic status and confusing standards makes it difficult to define misconduct. We see a risk that the practice of portfolio writing for assessment can lead to misconduct, including downright lies about accomplishments. We conclude that the trustworthiness of teaching portfolios is a responsibility for the academic community as a whole

National Category
Pedagogy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-830 (URN)10.1080/1360144X.2015.1083435 (DOI)
Available from: 2015-09-30 Created: 2015-09-30 Last updated: 2018-04-28Bibliographically approved
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0003-0787-1880

Search in DiVA

Show all publications