Abstract
An increased political and professional interest in learning has manifested itself in a shift from content-based to outcome-based curricula and in an increased focus on evidence-informed teaching. Within schools, among teachers and in the overall field of education, the paradigmatic shift from content-based to outcome-based curricula has been followed by enhanced interest in, as well as debate about, how learning outcomes are operationalised into learning objectives or targets in study regulations and syllabus/lesson plans, and in formalised assessment of learning.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G. (2012). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the teacher. Phenomenology & Practice, 6(2), 35–49.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3–38). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Dewey, J. (1985/1916). Democracy and education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works (Vol. 9). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1986/1933). How we think. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works: 1925–1953 (Vol. 8, pp. 105–352). Carbondale, IL & Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1991/1919). How we think. New York, NY: Prometheu Books.
Dewey, J. (2008/1939). Theory of valuation. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works (Vol. 9, p. 227). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
English, A. R. (2014/2013). Discontinuity in learning. Dewey, Herbart and education as transformation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2013). Defining student achievement. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 3–6). London: Pouthledge.
Hansen, J. J. (2006). Mellem design og didaktik. Om digitale læremidler i skolen. SDU, ph.d.-afhandling.
Hansen, J. J. (2010). Læremiddellandskabet. Fra læremiddel til undervisning. København: Akademisk Forlag.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. New York, NY & London: Teachers College Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. London: Routledge.
Haugsbakk, G., & Nordkvelle, Y. (2007). The rhetoric of ICT and the new language of learning: A critical analysis of the use of ICT in the curricular field. European Educational Research Journal, 6(1), 1–12. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.1.1
Heimann, P. (1976). Didaktik als Unterrichtswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Klett.
Helmke, A. (2013). Undervisningskvalitet og lærerprofessionalitet – diagnostisering, evaluering og udvikling af undervisning. Frederikshavn: Dafolo.
Herbart, J. F. (1965/1841). Umriss Pädagogischer Vorlesungen (Text der zweiten Ausgabe). In H. von Walter Asmus (Ed.), Herbart Pädagogish-Didatische Schriften. Düsseldorf&München: Verlag Helmut Küpper Vormals Georg Bondi.
Heyerdahl-Larsen, C. (2000). Læreboken – Tvangstrøye eller helsetrøye? En teoretisk og empirisk fremstilling av lærebokens rolle i undervisningen. Hovedoppgave ipedagogikk. Oslo Universitet.
Hopmann, S., & Künzli, R. (1994). Topik der Lehrplanung. Das Arauer Lehrplannormal. Bildungsforschung und Bildungspraksis, 16(2), 161–184. doi:http://www.lehrplanforschung.ch/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Topik-der-Lehrplanung.-Das-Arauer-Lehrplannormal.pdf
Keiding, T. B., & Qvortrup, A. (2014). Systemteori og didaktik. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Keiding, T. B., & Qvortrup, A. (2015). DUT som didaktisk felt: en empirisk analyse af didaktiske temaer i perioden 2006–2013. I: Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 10(19), 8–21.
Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum. Theory and practice (6th ed.). London: Sage.
Kvernbekk, T. (2011). The concept of evidence in evidence-based practice. Educational Theory, 61(5), 513–532.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2006). Samfundets uddannelsessystem. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Mincer, J. (1958). Investment in human capital and personal income distribution. The Journal of Political Economy, 66(4), 281–302.
Olteanu, C., & Olteanu, L. (2013). Enhancing mathematics communication using critical aspects and dimensions of variation. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(4), 513–522.
Qvortrup, A., & Keiding, T. (2016). The mistake to mistake learning theory with didactics. In A. Qvortrup, M. Wiberg, G. Christensen, & M. Hansbøl (Eds.), On the definition of learning. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Qvortrup, A., & Keiding, T. (2017). Didaktik som iagttagelse af undervisning og læring. Frederikshavn: Forlaget Dafolo. (in press)
Qvortrup, A., Wiberg, M., Christensen, G., & Hansbøl, M. (Eds.). (2016). On the definition of learning. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Redelius, K., & Hay, P. J. (2012). Student views on criterion-referenced assessment and grading in Swedish physical education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 17(2), 211–225.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1626–1640.
Rønsen, A. K. (2014). Vurdering som profesjonskompetence (Ph.D. thesis). University of Bergen, Norway.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Skjelbred, D., Solstad, T., & Aamotsbakken, B. (2005). Kartlegging av læremidler og læremiddelpraksis. Tønsberg: Høgskolen i Vestfold.
Terhart, E. (2003). Constructivism and teaching: A new paradigm in general didactics? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 25–44. doi:10.1080/00220270210163653
von Oettingen, A. (2001). Det pædagogiske paradox – et grundstudie i almen pædagogik. Århus: Forlaget Klim.
Watson, S. M. R., Gable, R. A., Gear, S. B., & Hughes, K. C. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 79–89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Qvortrup, A., Wiberg, M. (2017). Learning Between Means and Aims. In: Qvortrup, A., Wiberg, M. (eds) Dealing with Conceptualisations of Learning. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-029-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-029-5_1
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6351-029-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)