Mapping the Research Landscape on Learning Outcomes
A Structural Topic Modelling Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.6585Nøgleord:
learning outcomes, structural topic modelling, instructional design, educational equity, comparative educationResumé
Learning outcomes (LOs) have become central across the field of education, from the political to the academic realms, through to the professional. Yet, their definition and application remain contested, ranging from narrowly measurable skills to broad developmental goals. This is further complicated by their tight entanglement with assessment, accountability, and cross-national comparability agendas. This study addresses this complex situation by, following a configurative synthesis review, employing Structural Topic Modelling (STM) to map the research landscape in LOs in eight European countries. The corpus comprises 176 peer-reviewed journal articles. Model optimisation driven by semantic coherence and exclusivity identified 16 topics, which were later organised into five thematic categories. The findings reveal a diversified and uneven research landscape. Instructional design and educational technology and cognitive-affective dimensions were the most prevalent categories. In turn, social equity received comparatively limited attention. This points to a strong dominance of studies on how particular instructional configurations - namely technology-mediated pedagogy and individual-level learning optimisation – can boost engagement and performance. That is, within the literature that explicitly mobilises the vocabulary of LOs, measurable outcomes and instructional efficacy are prioritised, while the structural determinants of educational achievement remain at the margins. The analysis, then, reveals a persistent misalignment between prevailing research priorities in this literature and the enduring realities of educational inequality. Addressing this imbalance requires a tighter integration of micro-level instructional mechanisms with macro-level governance, accountability, and equity conditions, and a better scrutiny of how LO metrics travel and metamorphose — across national contexts.
Downloads
Referencer
Adam, S. (July 1−2, 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. United Kingdom Bologna Seminar, Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh Conference Centre), Edinburgh.
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Cairney, P., & Kippin, S. (2021). The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking. Open Research Europe, 1. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.13834.2
Caspersen, J., Frølich, N., & Muller, J. (2017). Higher education learning outcomes – Ambiguity and change in higher education. European Journal of Education, 52, 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12208
CEDEFOP. (2009). The shift to learning outcomes. Conceptual, political and practical developments in Europe. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications/4079
Chakrabarti, P., & Frye, M. (2017). A mixed-methods framework for analyzing text data: Integrating computational techniques with qualitative methods in demography. Demographic Research, 37(42), 1351–1382. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.42
Clarke, M. (2018). Rethinking graduate employability: The role of capital, individual attributes and context. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1923–1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1294152
Gorur, R. (2016). Seeing like PISA: A cautionary tale about the performativity of international assessments. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 598–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116658289
Holmes, L. (2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.587140
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
Luhmann, N. (1978). Erleben und handeln. In H. Lenk (Ed.), Handlungstheorien interdisziplinär II. Handlungserklärungen und philosophische Handlungsinterpretationen. Erster Halbband (pp. 235–253). Fink.
Mau, S. (2019). The metric society: On the quantification of the social. Polity Press.
Murtonen, M., Gruber, H., & Lehtinen, E. (2017). The return of behaviourist epistemology: a review of learning outcomes studies. Educational Research Review, 22, 114–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.001
Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research (pp. 3–22). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1
Prøitz, T., Havnes, A., Briggs, M., & Scott, I. (2017). Learning Outcomes in Professional Contexts in Higher Education. European Journal of Education, 52, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12207
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Airoldi, E. M. (2016). A model of text for Experimentation in the Social Sciences. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(515), 988–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1141684
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2019). Stm: An R package for structural topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, 91(2), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v091.i02
Rodriguez, M. Y., & Storer, H. L. (2019). A computational social science perspective on qualitative data exploration: Using topic models for the descriptive analysis of social media data. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 38(1), 54–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2019.1616350
Tröhler, D. (2013). The OECD and the Cold War culture: thinking historically about PISA. In H.-D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.). PISA, power, and policy: the emergence of global educational governance (pp. 141-161). Routledge.
Ulstein, J. (2024). Structural topic modelling as a mixed methods research design: a study on employer size and labor market outcomes for vulnerable groups. Quality & Quantity, 58, 4331–4351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01857-2
Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. (Eds.). (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7
Zelinka, J., Amorim, J. P., Parreira do Amaral, Jablonczay, N., Kovacheva, S., Kyttälä, M., Papadimitriou, A., Rambla, X., Siri, A., & Tikkanen, J. (2025). A Synthesis Review of Education Research on Learning Outcomes. In J. Tikkanen, M. Parreira do Amaral, T. Järvinen, & N. Alves (Eds.), Constructing learning outcomes: problematizing (under)achievement in Europe (pp. 103–125). Bloomsbury Academic. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350446717.ch-4
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2026 Tiago Neves, Luís Filipe de Araújo Pessoa, Jozef Zelinka, Marcelo Parreira do Amaral, Tanja Sturm, José Pedro Amorim
Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse (by).
Declaration on copyright
- The author/s will keep their copyright and right of reproduction of their own manuscript, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, but give the journal a permanent right to 1) present the manuscript to the public in the original form in which it was digitally published and 2) to be registered and cited as the first publication of the manuscript.
- The author itself must manage its financial reproduction rights in relation to any third-parties.
- The journal does not provide any financial or other remuneration for contributions submitted.
- Readers of the journal may print the manuscripts presented under the same conditions that apply to reproduction of a physical copy. This means that mass reproduction of physical copies or production of copies for commercial purposes is not permitted without the agreement of the author/s.
