The Kyrgyz Republic has taken active steps to reform the education system. In order to integrate higher professional education into the international educational sphere, there was introduced two-level structure of higher education (Bachelor, Master) with the Resolution of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic in 2011 “On establishing a two-level structure of higher professional education in the Kyrgyz Republic”, there were approved models of state educational standards, as well as lists of training areas and specialties of higher professional education. In 2012, there were adopted very important documents – Concept and Education Development Strategy till 2020, proclaiming the important benchmarks, values and priorities for the education system of Kyrgyzstan. The document points to the need for a transition to education, focused on the final result.

In order to optimize the structure and content of higher education there have been developed national standards of the new generation based on the competence model. Standards of new generation allow the providence of existing of a single educational space in the country, a single level of education.

Development and implementation of the education standard is caused with the desire of Kyrgyzstan to log in world culture, which requires achievements of international educational practice in the formation of education. First of all, this is due to the introduction of the Bologna process in the education system of Kyrgyzstan. In connection with the development and implementation of standards for a new generation the use of the concept of ‘learning outcomes’ gets extending. In the development of educational programs, training modules, the main backbone element will be the result of training. This notion is regularly discussed at international forums. In the ministerial communiqué 2012 (Bucharest, Romania) was  noted that in the process of formation mechanisms of transparency, assessment and recognition of learning outcomes of education play an important role. According to the expert on the Bologna Process S. Adam, ‘learning outcomes are used as an instrument of reform and innovation of educational programs as well as to determine the credit system of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation (ECTS), to describe modules and training programs and to ensure the student-focused, based on the results educational process. From a modest secondary instrument the learning outcomes have become one of the main mechanisms of radical reform of European higher education “[1].

Thus, with the proclamation of education focused on the final result, the role of learning outcomes has unusually increased. The research is initiated to determine its nature and role in the education system. The result of training is not something completely new to the education system. Even with the emergence of the phenomenon of learning, it was clear that any training is completed to achieve certain results. Even in the 50-80-years of the twentieth century questions were raised about the training results by psychologists and educators B.Bloom [2], R.Gane [3], R.Mager [4].

The result of study is a part of the structure of education and has a close relationship with all the components. First of all, the result of learning is related to the purpose of training. Fundamental research on the development goals were conducted by American psychologist B.Bloom. In his paper [2] the pedagogical goals are organized on increasing complexity.

However, as we know, the goal is not the result, but assumption about result. It’s a kind of hypothesis requiring verification for validity. The purpose of learning as the planned result, answers the question: What should be the result? This important methodological conclusion was the basis of the formulation of the concept about requirements for knowledge and skills that allow imagining how and what students need to learn what kinds of activities should show certain knowledge and skills, what qualities should have students.

In the structure of the learning process, the result of learning is closely linked with the means and methods of training, monitoring and assessment.

During the years of Soviet Power in the education system of Kyrgyzstan the concept of “learning outcomes” was interpreted in different ways. Many authors have regarded it as knowledge, abilities and skills acquired by student. Others have used the concepts as “having been learned” and “being learned”. Having been learned – is a student’s willingness to perform a certain action, which demonstrates the knowledge and skills learned in the process of pupil learning. What’s the point of being learned is the students’ ability to successfully acquire the knowledge, skills and abilities? The document of the Bologna Process (2005) noted that the results of training – “is statement of what is expected to know, understand and / or be able to demonstrate to the student after completion of the learning process” [5]. Stephen Adam defines learning outcomes as a written statement of what a successful student or the student is expected to be able to do upon completion of the module / course unit or qualification [6]. In recent documents of the Bologna Process learning outcomes are defined as “a set of competences, expressing what the student will know, understand or be able to do after completion of the learning process” [7]. In our work, the result of learning is defined as knowledge and skills, intellectual and creative abilities, socially significant properties (quality, competence) learned by a student, valuable  relationship with the environment, which are expressed by mastering the levels [8].

Formulated definitions allow us to conclude that the result of study focuses on the achievements of the students, involves the demonstration of achievements at the end of training. Consequently, the learning outcome is systemic. This means that the learning outcome has elements that are organically linked with each other, influence each other and focus on integrity. Logic dictates that it is necessary to identify their components. In our opinion, the result of training consists of three components.

At the end of the program, students acquire knowledge (facts, concepts). In parallel, they learn about how to work. In addition, they are informed about the features of the process of assimilation of knowledge as a motive, interest, attention, etc. This knowledge will constitute a substantial component of learning outcomes.

However, for the acquisition of knowledge and their application, methods of activity are needed (abilities and skills). As a result of actions acquired knowledge transform, regroup. These methods and actions constitute the content of the activity component of the learning outcomes.

Mastering knowledge, using methods of activity, students make their personal property. Acquiring competence, demonstrating their achievements, they are competent. Acquired knowledge and experience contribute to the development of the individual student. They allow you to successfully solve problems, help others, and in the future – to participate in the creation of material and spiritual wealth of society and of its own, personal wealth. Consequently, these personal property and personal qualities make up a component of learning outcomes.

Another feature of the learning outcome is the level of assimilation. The components of the learning outcomes discussed above, characterized in terms of its structure. They are static. A level of learning is characterized by dynamic learning outcomes. Components basically answer the questions: what is the result of learning, what is its structure? In contrast, the level of achievement answers the questions: how to express learning outcomes of the student upon completion of training? What is the level of educational achievements? Consequently, the components and levels of assimilation constitute two sides of the same concepts – learning outcomes.

Level of achievement details intended learning outcomes in the form of students’ activity level. This description of the desired model of action is at the end of training. Almost all the leading researchers in the field of education in the planning of learning outcomes based on a B.Bloom’s taxonomy and his various modifications. Bloom’s Taxonomy has become a kind of tool to generate the level of learning and teaching for monitoring the path of development of each student. In his work, he proposed and substantiated the six different levels, which are arranged hierarchically: knowledge; understanding; application; analysis; synthesis; assessment. As the main reception of specification there are offered verbs of type as: analyze, express, display, interpret, evaluate, upgrade, synthesize, etc.

V.P. Simonov offers a kind of model for determining the outcome of training. Educational outcomes he divided into the following levels [9]:

1. Distinction – select information from the representation (4%);

2. Memory – unconscious reproduction of text, rules, wording, etc. (12%);

3. Understanding – conscious play (20%);

4. Basic abilities and skills – reproduction rate of application of theoretical knowledge in practice (28%);

5. Transfer – creative level implementation assimilated theory (36%).

Here the logic is identical with the taxonomy of B.Bloom: from the development of simple information available to make the transition to the development of more complex. At the first level (4% of training), the so-called “discernment” student distinguishes the studied object or phenomenon from their peers. At the second level (12% of training), “remembering” the student shows a formal introduction to the subject or learning process with their external, superficial characteristics. At the third level (20%) of “understanding” – the student can not only choose on the basis of a number of signs of a particular object or phenomenon, but also to define concepts and to characterize the relationship. At the fourth level (28%) of “elementary skills or level of productive activity,” the student does not only shows an understanding of the functional relationships between the studied phenomena and the ability to describe the object, but also solves the problem, revealing the causal links, is able to bind the material under study and practice, with life. At the fifth level (36%) of «transfer” the student is able to selectively through targeted application of relevant knowledge to acquire new knowledge in other subject areas. It is the system methodists and practices suggest the use in the educational process of universities and schools.

Learning outcomes expressed in terms of competencies, open the way for increased academic and professional mobility, to increase the comparability and compatibility of diplomas and qualifications. Result orientation training completely changes the focus is not in favor of teaching, and in favor of teaching. According to experts, the result of learning is the basis of student-centered approach to learning. This approach opens up a new direction for research and involves systemic change in education. World experience shows the transition from the traditional “centered on the teacher” approach to “student-centered” approach. Methods, centered on the teacher, make the main emphasis on the teacher. Methods based on the results, put in the spotlight of the student [10]. Thus, in the educational process, there is observed a shift of emphasis from teaching to learning, active educational activity of the student is at the first plan.

Result-oriented education leads to a revision of the structure of the education. Experts offer the following stages of training [11]:

1. Identify the expected learning outcomes.

2. To carry out planning and control (Develop curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment in such a way as to make it possible to achieve results).

3. Evaluate the results (to collect data on student achievement of results).

4. Improve the program based on the assessment results.

The wording of the expected learning outcomes affects for accurate understanding of the teacher how to plan training, to what extent and form must teach and evaluate the program material. This on the other hand provides clarity for the student. He/she will know what level to achieve and how should demonstrate their achievements.

On this basis we can say that the result of learning becomes measurable academic achievement of students. It is composed in the language competencies and appears on stage problem solving. Emphasis on learning outcomes, knowledge-changing paradigm of education on competence, the transition from a simple transfer of knowledge to promote and support students in the mastery of competencies make a lot of action and taking drastic measures in higher education.

In his report S.Adam gives a curious fact that an appeal to the Google gives more than 4790000 links to the term “learning outcomes” and 222,000 references on the topic “Writing learning outcomes” [1]. Given that the report was made in 2008, we can see even more heightened interest in the teaching community to learning outcomes is now such an important and its role in the modern education system.

Hence it can be seen significant scope of work to be done, so that learning outcomes can fully realize its potential as a means of improving qualifications, educational institutions and student-centered education.

1. Stephen Adam. Learning outcomes: current developments in Europe. Update on the issues and applications of learning outcomes associated with the Bologna Process. Bologna Seminar: Learning outcomes based higher education: the Scottish experience 21–22 February 2008, at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland. http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Seminars/Edinburgh_Feb08_Adams.pdf
2. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.HandbookI.Cognitive Domain. (Ed. By B.S. Bloom). N.Y., 1956.
3. Gagne R.M., Briggs L.J., Wager W.W. Principles of instructional design (4th ed.).Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Iovanovich, 1962.
4. Mager, R. F. Preparing instructional objectives. 2nd ed., Belmont, California:Pitman Learning, 1984.
5. ECTS Users’ Guide (2005) Brussels: Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/socrates/ects/doc/guide_en.pdf
6. Adam, S. (2004) Using Learning Outcomes: A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing learning outcomes at the local, national and international levels. Report on United Kingdom Bologna Seminar, July 2004, Herriot-Watt University.
7. Руководство пользователя ECTS. Последняя версия. 2009 г. (ECTS Users’Guide. Final Version. 2009).
8. Калдыбаев С.К. Педагогические измерения: Становление и развитие. – Б., 2008. – 208 с.
9. Симонов В.П. Педагогический менеджмент. Ноу-хау в образовании. –М., 2009. 368 с.
10. Declan Kennedy, Áine Hyland, Norma Ryan Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: a Practical Guide. Implementing Bologna in your institution. Bologna Handbook. C 3.4–1 Using learning outcomes and competences BH 1 02 06 12 1.
11. ANGELA HO (Ph. D., Head Educational Development Centre The Hong Kong Polytechnic University) INSTITUTIONAL EFFORT IN IMPLEMENTING OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH IN STUDENT LEARNING International Conference on Learning Outcomes, European Concortium for Accreditation Zurich, Sept. 3–4 2007. EСA http://www.oaq.ch/pub/en/documents/AngelaHo.pdf

Все статьи автора «Байтуголова Жанара Абдылдаевна»