====== Learning outcomes ====== > **Summary** > //This page describes the principles for formulating learning outcomes within Fontys ICT. The learning outcomes are based on the national educational profile, the [[https://www.hbo-i.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/24040_HBOi_Domeinbeschrijving_ENG.pdf|HBO-i Domain Description]], and are formulated in a consistent, future-proof and learning-path-independent manner. As such, they form the backbone of the curriculum and provide direction for education, assessment and student development.// ===== Introduction ===== Within Fontys ICT, learning outcomes form the foundation of the Units of Learning Outcomes (ULOs). Learning outcomes describe the observable professional behaviour that students develop and demonstrate throughout a period of study, regardless of the learning pathway they follow. The programmes offered by Fontys ICT are based on the national [[https://www.hbo-i.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/24040_HBOi_Domeinbeschrijving_ENG.pdf|HBO-i Domain Description]]. This framework distinguishes four levels of proficiency across the Associate Degree, Bachelor's and Master's programmes. ^ **Programme/Phase** ^ **Level of proficiency** ^ | Propaedeutic phase | 1 | | Associate Degree | 2 | | Bachelor | 3 | | Master | 4 | //Table 1. Programme phases and levels of proficiency// A programme consists of multiple Units of Learning Outcomes (ULOs), each linked to a specific level of proficiency. Every ULO represents a [[https://studyguide.fontysict.nl/?c=bc|topic]] at a defined level within the HBO-i Domain Description (1 = Introduction, 2 = Main, 3 = Advanced, 4 = Expert). Through the sequential completion of ULOs, students progressively develop towards the intended exit level of the programme. Each ULO contains a unique set of learning outcomes. A learning outcome describes the observable professional behaviour that a student demonstrates within a relevant professional context. Learning outcomes focus on the outcome of learning rather than the learning pathway taken to achieve that outcome. Within Fontys ICT, learning outcomes are formulated according to [[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FOOTP%20%2D%20Handreiking%20formuleren%20van%20leeruitkomsten%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten&or=WORD%2DWEB%2EBODY%2ENT&ct=1782830148192|the Tuning methodology]] and are accompanied by success criteria. These success criteria further specify each learning outcome by describing the observable behaviour that students can demonstrate to provide evidence that the learning outcome has been achieved. ===== Quality criteria for learning outcomes ===== To safeguard educational quality, Fontys ICT applies a set of quality criteria when formulating learning outcomes. These criteria support the development of consistent, future-proof and learning-path-independent learning outcomes across the curriculum. They are based on the Fontys frameworks for [[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FFontys%20kader%20Talentgericht%20Onderwijs%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten&or=WORD%2DWEB%2EBODY%2ENT&ct=1782830223310|Talent-Oriented Education]] (TOE), the [[..:beleid:studentnabij_onderwijs|Fontys ICT student centred education]] (Policy Wiki), and relevant educational literature. \\ __Explanation of the quality criteria for learning outcomes__ The table below presents the quality criteria applied by Fontys ICT when formulating learning outcomes. ^ **Quality criterion learning outcomes** ^ **Description** ^ **Rationale** ^ | **1. Structure** | The learning outcome is formulated according to the Tuning methodology: \\ * You + active verb \\ * includes: type, subject, standard and context | The Tuning methodology ensures that learning outcomes are formulated consistently and transparently (Fontys, 2025), making the expected behaviour and level explicit. This supports constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) by strengthening the alignment between learning outcomes, assessment and learning activities. Well-formulated learning outcomes help students understand what they are expected to learn and demonstrate, enabling them to take ownership of their learning process and monitor their own progress (NVAO, 2019; Fontys, 2025). | | **2. Singularity** | The learning outcome focuses on one primary HBO-i activity: \\ * Analyse \\ * Advise \\ * Design \\ * Realise \\ * Manage & Control | Focusing each learning outcome on a single HBO-i activity improves clarity and assessability by emphasising one primary professional activity. It prevents different cognitive activities from being combined within a single learning outcome and contributes to reliable assessment (Fontys, 2025; HBO-i Foundation, 2023). Furthermore, structuring learning outcomes according to the IT development lifecycle creates coherence and ensures they remain sustainable and relevant over time (OCW, 2024). | | **3. Behaviour-oriented** | The learning outcome describes observable professional behaviour, i.e. what the student does (e.g. analyse, justify, select). | Learning outcomes describe observable professional behaviour rather than products or deliverables, in line with the Fontys guidelines and NLQF principles (Fontys, 2025; Dutch Qualifications Framework, 2025). This improves the validity of assessment, as students are assessed directly on what they demonstrate in a professional context. | | **4. Context** | The learning outcome describes a relevant professional context: \\ * domain (e.g. AI, cybersecurity, software) \\ * type of environment (e.g. SME, embedded, organisational) | Context specifies the professional situation in which the behaviour is demonstrated, making the learning outcome meaningful and recognisable. According to the Tuning Project (2017), context is essential for expressing the complexity and applicability of professional performance (Biggs & Tang, 2011; NVAO, 2019). | | **5. Level** | The learning outcome explicitly reflects the intended level by describing: \\ * complexity of the problem \\ * degree of autonomy \\ * predictability of the context \\ * scope for decision-making and solution space | Explicitly describing complexity, autonomy and the nature of the problem clarifies the intended level of the learning outcome and supports learning progression. This aligns with the NLQF and the ZelCom model, where level is determined by context, autonomy and complexity (Fontys, 2025; HBO-i Foundation, 2023). | | **6. Technology-independent** | The learning outcome is independent of specific tools or technologies, unless these are level-defining. | Technology-independent learning outcomes are more sustainable and allow students to demonstrate achievement through different learning pathways and approaches. This is consistent with the Fontys guidelines, which state that learning outcomes should not depend on specific tools, technologies or learning activities (Biggs & Tang, 2011). It also aligns with the Fontys Assessment Quality Framework, which promotes student ownership by allowing students to decide how they will demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes (Fontys, 2025). | ===== Support for formulating learning outcomes ===== Fontys ICT uses a self-trained AI tool to support the formulation and revision of learning outcomes. The tool is based on the HBO-i Domain Description, the Fontys guidelines for learning outcomes and success criteria, the quality criteria described in this Policy Wiki, and relevant examples from the curriculum. It supports the development of consistent, future-proof and learning-path-independent learning outcomes. The generated output should always be regarded as a first draft. ===== Procedure for formulating and revising learning outcomes ===== Within Fontys ICT, the following procedure is generally applied when formulating or revising learning outcomes. The Curriculum Owner (CO) initiates a development assignment for the formulation or revision of learning outcomes, including an initial proposal generated by the AI tool. The Topic Owner (TO), Educational Specialist and, where appropriate, the teaching team review the proposal and make any necessary revisions. The revised learning outcomes are then submitted to the Curriculum Owner for approval. Once approved, the Topic Owner records the final learning outcomes in the curriculum database and the corresponding Canvas course. **Note:** All Units of Learning Outcomes (ULOs) within Fontys ICT must comply with this policy from September 2027 onwards. ===== Literature ===== * Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). //A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives//. New York: Longman. * Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). //Teaching for Quality Learning at University: what the student does//. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. * Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). //Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain//. New York: David McKay Company. * Bulthuis, P. (2013). //De samenhang tussen zelfstandigheid en complexiteit: Het ZelCommodel, grip op competentieniveaus//. EXAMENS, 2, 5–10. * Commissie Rinnooy Kan (Adviescommissie 'Flexibel hoger onderwijs voor werkenden'). (2014). Flexibel hoger onderwijs voor volwassenen: Adviesrapport. Den Haag: Ministerie van OCW. * Fontys (2025). Fontys kader toetskwaliteit. Eindhoven: Fontys. * Fontys (2025). Fontys kader Talentgericht onderwijs. Eindhoven: Fontys. * HBO-i Stichting. (2023). //Domeinbeschrijving HBO-i 2023//. [[https://www.hbo-i.nl|https://www.hbo-i.nl]] * Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. //Academic Medicine//, 65(9), 63-67. * Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. (2024). //Wet van 30 september 2024 tot wijziging van de Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek ten behoeve van het verankeren van de leeruitkomsten in het hoger onderwijs//. Staatsblad 2024, 279. * Nationaal coördinatiepunt Nederlands Kwalificatieraamwerk. (2025). Schematisch overzicht generieke inschaling in NLQF en EQF van door de overheid gereguleerde kwalificaties. [[https://nlqf.nl/landingpage-opleider/|https://nlqf.nl/landingpage-opleider/]] * NVAO. (2019). //Beoordelingskader accreditatiestelsel hoger onderwijs Nederland//. Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie. [[https://www.nvao.net|https://www.nvao.net]] * OCW (2016). Handreiking pilots flexibilisering hoger onderwijs. Den Haag: Ministerie van OCW. * Tuning Project. (2017). //Tuning Educational Structures in Europe: Reference points for the design and delivery of degree programmes//. University of Deusto & University of Groningen. [[https://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu|https://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu]]