Examining ELT-knowledge-based learning outcomes within the national curriculum guidelines of Indonesian Islamic tertiary education

Sukirman Sukirman, Caroline Teresa Linse

Abstract


The study aims to critically analyse the clarity, observability, and measurability of ELT knowledge-based learning outcomes (LOs) as outlined in the current national curriculum guidelines for Indonesian Islamic higher education institutions. The researchers employed document analysis to assess 22 items of the LOs within the guidelines published in 2018 by the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MoRA) through the Directorate of Indonesian Islamic Higher Education. Then, the researchers applied the Bloom’s revised taxonomy as the theoretical framework, converting LOs’ illustrative verbs to Bloom’s illustrative verbs to examine the quality of LOs to determine whether the LOs promote higher- or lower-order thinking skills. This study shows that a significant majority (95.45%) of the analysed LOs in the current national guidelines suffer from poor design (unclear, unobservable, and unmeasurable) due to the absence of Bloom’s cognitive illustrative verbs. Collectively, these findings have important implications for educators and policymakers to pay more attention to the quality of their designed LOs. It suggests an urgent need for the Directorate of Indonesian Islamic Higher Education to revise its LOs because they risk affecting the quality, relevance, and effectiveness of their education in generating graduates who have global competitiveness. Poorly designed LOs promote only lower-order skills, which paralyse graduates’ global competitiveness because they do not possess the knowledge required in the international arena. It is hoped that this study will serve as an inspiration to other countries and educational authorities facing similar challenges, encouraging them to be more meticulous in crafting well-designed LOs.

Keywords


Bloom’s illustrative verbs; curriculum; English language teaching; Indonesian Islamic higher education; learning outcome

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ağçama, R., & Babanoğlu, M. P. (2020). Evaluation of the learning outcomes in the revised EFL curriculum: A research on outcome verbs. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(1), 127-142. https://ijci.globets.org/index.php/IJCI/article/view/277

Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213-230. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2931/293123488010.pdf

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (1st ed.). Pearson.

Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038597031003015

Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/

Aziza, A. A., Yusof, K. M., & Yatim, J. M. (2012). Evaluation on the effectiveness of learning outcomes from students’ perspectives. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 22-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.628

Azra, A. (2008). Indonesian higher education: From public good to privatization. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1(2), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516230802094411

Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Brooks, S., Dobbins, K., Scott, J. J. A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R. I. (2014). Learning about learning outcomes: The student perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 721-733. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901964

Buckley, J. B., & Michel, J. O. (2020). An examination of higher education institutional level learning outcomes related to sustainability. Innovation Higher Education, 45, 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-09493-7

Caspersen, J., Smeby, J., & Aamodt, P. O. (2017). Measuring learning outcomes. European Journal of Education, 52(1), 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12205

Chance, B., & Peck, R. (2015). From curriculum guidelines to learning outcomes: Assessment at the program level. The American Statistician, 69(4), 409-416. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24592142

Collins, R. (2014). Skills for the 21st Century: Teaching higher order thinking. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, 12(4).

Cowan, R. (2009). The teacher’s grammar of English. Cambridge University Press

Diktis. (2018). Standar Kompetensi Lulusan (SKL) dan Capaian Pembelajaran Lulusan (CPL) program studi jenjang sarjana pada perguruan tinggi keagamaan Islam dan Fakultas Agama Islam (FAI) pada perguruan tinggi [Graduate competency standards and graduate learning outcomes for undergraduate study programs in Islamic higher education]. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Islam.

Dobbins, K., Brooks, S., Scott, J. J. A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R. I. (2016). Understanding and enacting learning outcomes: The academic’s perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1217-1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.966668

Fiegel, G. L. (2013). Incorporating learning outcomes into an introductory geotechnical engineering course. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(3), 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.794200

Ganapathy, M., Singh, M. K. M., Kaur, S., & Kit, L. W. (2017). Promoting higher order thinking skills via teaching practices. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 23(1), 75-85. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2301-06

Green, K. (2011). Matching functions and graphs at multiple levels of Bloom’s revised taxonomy. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 20(3), 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970802207212

Hadjianastasis, M. (2017). Learning outcomes in higher education: Assumptions, positions and the views of early-career staff in the UK system. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2250-2266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1141402

Hart Research Associates. (2016). Trends in learning outcomes assessment: Key findings from a survey among administrators at AAC&U member institutions. https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015_Survey_Report3.pdf.

Hoque, E. (2016). Three domains of learning: Cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The Journal of EFL Education and Research, 2(2), 45-52.

Hou, A. Y. C., Morse, R., & Chiang, C. (2012). An analysis of mobility in global rankings: Making institutional strategic plans and positioning for building world-class universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(6), 841-857. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.662631

Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2002). The trouble with learning outcomes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), 220-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787402003003003

Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510309399

Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. http://lo-hei.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/A-Learning-Outcomes-Book-D-Kennedy.pdf

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/843571/

Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H.-G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193-2213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1072290

Liu, O. L., Bridgeman, B., & Adler, R. M. (2012). Measuring learning outcomes in higher education: Motivation matters. Educational Researcher, 41(9), 352-362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12459679

Lu, K., Yang, H. H., Shi, Y., & Wang, X. (2021). Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment. International Journal of Educational Technology Higher Education, 18, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00238-7

Luebke, S., & Lorié, J. (2013). Use of Bloom’s taxonomy in developing reading comprehension specifications. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 14(Special Issue), Article 3. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1013203

Malaysian Qualification Agency. (2017). Malaysian qualifications framework (MQF) (2nd ed.). https://www.mqa.gov.my/new/mqf.cfm#gsc.tab=0

McInnis, C. (2010). The Australian qualifications framework. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 141-155). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3754-1_8

Meda, L., & Swart, A. J. (2018). Analysing learning outcomes in an electrical engineering curriculum using illustrative verbs derived from Bloom’s Taxonomy. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(3), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1378169

Mitchell, K. M. W., & Manzo, W. R. (2018). The purpose and perception of learning objectives. Journal of Political Science Education, 14(4), 456-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1433542

Mogalakwe, M. (2006). The use of documentary research methods in social research. African Sociological Review, 10(1), 221-230. https://www.jstor.org/stable/afrisocirevi.10.1.221

O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Quality Assurance Agency. (2014). UK quality code for higher education: The frameworks for higher education qualifications of UK degree-awarding bodies. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/qualifications-frameworks.pdf

Solikhah, I., & Budiharso, T. (2019). Investigating the learning outcomes of an INQF-based English language teaching curriculum in Indonesia. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(4), 153-175. https://jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/1090

Sukirman, S. (2022a). The concept of “Kampus Merdeka” in the current policy of Indonesian higher education: ELT lecturers’ perspectives. Indonesian TESOL Journal, 4(1), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.24256/itj.v4i1.2440

Sukirman, S. (2022b). The KKNI-based ELT curriculum applied in Islamic higher education in Indonesia: Global curriculum ideology perspectives. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 43(2), 311-322. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/kjss/article/view/258488

Suleman, F., Videira, P., & Araújo, E. (2021). Higher education and employability skills: Barriers and facilitators of employer engagement at local level. Education Sciences, 11(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020051

Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Jossey-Bass.

Swart, A. J. (2010). Evaluation of final examination papers in Engineering: A case study using bloom’s taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(2), 257-264. https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2009.2014221

Swart, A. J., & Daneti, M. (2019). Analyzing learning outcomes for electronic fundamentals using Bloom’s Taxonomy. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 39-44). IEEE Xplore. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725137.

The South African qualifications authority: Level descriptors for the South African National Qualifications framework. (2012, November). South African Qualifications Authority.

Tutkun, O. F., Guzel, D., Koroğlu, M., & Ilhan, H. (2012). Bloom’s revised taxonomy and critics on it. The Online Journal of Counselling and Education, 1(3), 23-30.

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Pant, H. A., & Coates, H. (2016). Assessing student learning outcomes in higher education: challenges and international perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(5), 655-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1169501




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v11i1.30555

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


View Journal Stats