Read the interesting post from Gardner Campbell here: http://www.gardnercampbell.net/blog1/?p=2239&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=understanding-and-learning-outcomes
Yet something is deeply amiss, in my view. As we seek to perfect the language and institutionalization of a culture of “learning outcomes,” it seems we are necessarily moving toward a strictly behaviorist paradigm of learning, away from what Jerome Bruner refers to as the “cognitive turn” in learning theory and ever more deliberately toward a stimulus-response paradigm of learning.
Exactly! In many cases, because I work in faculty development and get to see a lot of courses on the design side, faculty obediently follow directions to put in measurable learning outcomes, and then simply go about their business of teaching, not worried about the messiness of teaching that might stray from those measured statements in the syllabus. Subterfuge is undesirable but what else can you do?