神戸大学 大学教育推進機構 大学教育研究
第 20 号（2011 年度） 2011 年 9 月 30 日発行：1－20

The Strategy for Learning Outcomes at Higher Education
Institutions in Sweden
武 寛子

The Strategy for Learning Outcomes at Higher Education
Institutions in Sweden
Hiroko TAKE (Kobe University GSICS)
Abstract:
This article provides comprehensive information about new developments in thefield of learning outcomes in Sweden.

It focuses on the internal documents

published by Högskolverket (the National Agency for Higher Education in Sweden).
It briefly presents an overview of the development and current state of higher
education institutions in Sweden.

It, then, weighs the advantages anddisadvantages of the strategy of learning outcomes.

1. Introduction
The establishment of a framework assessing the quality of education at higher
education institutions (hereafter HEIs) by evaluating learners’ learning processes andoutcomes has been progressing on an international basis. The framework aims toevaluate what knowledge and skills learners (students) should have cultivated at thetime of graduation, as indicated by the term “learning outcomes”. Frameworks forlearning outcomes have been established internationally, among them theAssessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) by OECD
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the Framework of

Qualification for the European Higher Education Area in Europe. Following theframeworks, nations make efforts to establish national frameworks for learning
outcomes.
Sweden also set a framework for learning outcomes as a part of the framework forhigher education quality assurance in 2011. Since the Higher Education Reform in
1977, HEIs have been required to provide knowledge and skills that can be utilized in
actual life and society. Knowledge and skills provided by HEIs must suit social
demands, and learning outcomes are intended to provide a bridge between
institutions and society.
As the name implies, learning outcomes represent the measurement and appraisalof students’ achievements at the end of the courses.

The definition of students’achievements at HEIs could be divided into a limited sense, which intimates thedepth of knowledge and understanding of each academic field, and a broad sense,
which intimates attitude, motivation and consciousness obtainable from theabsorption of learning. HEIs are expected to prepare students to demonstrate theattitude and motivation desired in the real world along with acquiring knowledge andskills through courses.

Learning outcomes as academic achievements throughhigher education, accordingly, can be defined as follows: (1) ability to develop
knowledge and skills concerning students’ academic fields, (2) ability to acquireautonomy and critical thinking, (3) ability to solve problems, and (4) ability to acquiresocial adjustment.
The paper is structured as follows. In the first part of this paper, I will examine
the background of the development of higher education institutions, for this provides
insights into the nature of education at HEIs and the roles they are expected to play.
I will then consider the internal efficiency of HEIs in Sweden and show that learning
outcomes will let HEIs be involved in the refinement of internal efficiency correlatingwith the allocation of public grants. The system of learning outcomes as quality
assurance is marked in that it will influence the allocation of funding. It is therefore
important to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of its use as part of quality
assurance. With these limitations in mind, the final part of this paper is concernedwith identifying the issues that need to be taken into account upon adopting the useof learning outcomes.

2. The Historical Background of Higher Education Institutions in Sweden
In 1477, Uppsala University was established as the first higher education
institution in Sweden. Being the only ones blessed with the opportunity to reach
HEIs before that point, the sons of upper class families had pursued their studies at
Paris, Bologna or Germany. The national federation between Sweden, Denmark and
Norway was the key factor behind the foundation of a higher education institution.
These three nations were governed by the Kalmar Union beginning in 1397; however,the fact was that Denmark exercised authority over Sweden and Norway. According
to Matsuzaki (1976), “People in Sweden enhanced the resistance of domination by
Denmark from the beginning of the union” (p. 44). The foundation of Uppsala
University, consequently, intimated political and cultural independence fromDenmark. Matsuzaki (1976) further explains, “Behind incentive in establishment ofUppsala University, there was a national movement toward complete independence of
Sweden from the Denmark governance.

The establishment of their universities

became a symbol of psychological and cultural independence for Swedes” (p. 45).
Taking a look at the education content in its infancy, however, it is clear that it
emulated that of Germany and bore the earmarks of an institution affiliated with
Uppsala Cathedral aiming at the cultivation of clericals. Institutions also sufferedfrom a lack of the lecturers and the insufficiency of facilities, both of which continued
until the seventeenth century.
Having experienced a dispute about HEIs in the 17th century and the collapse of
the absolute monarchy at the end of 18th century, institutions expanded and deepened
their research horizons, valuing freedom in research and education. In the wake ofUppsala University, Lund University, which focuses on the natural sciences andpharmacy, was initiated in 1668. Stockholm University and Gothenburg University,
again based on the natural sciences, were inaugurated in 1878 and 1891.

The

education content implemented in Latin was remodeled, and Swedish became theprimary teaching language. Universities as research institutions, rather than forthe cultivation of clericals, were formed. In the 19th century, other universities andcolleges providing professional academic fields such as engineering, commerce andagriculture were inaugurated, and higher education institutions flourished.
The Higher Education Reforms of 1977 and 1993 were significant turning points in
the history of higher education and autonomy. It was with the Higher Education
Reform of 1977 that the opportunity to access higher education institutions was
granted to all nations under the idea of recurrent education. Universities or colleges
had been placed in each local government while additional open universities had been
built, but with the reform, all the whole nation were entitled to access higher
education institutions regardless of geographical condition.

The second Higher

Education Reform gave universities the authority to determine their education
content and curriculums.

This, at the same time, provided authorization to

construct a framework of qualifications for education content.
As of 2011 in Sweden, there are thirteen public universities (Universitiet), twenty
public colleges (Högskola) and eighteen private colleges (Table 1). Three private
colleges have the authority to offer a doctoratei. Other private colleges are entitledto award a degree of bachelor and master. Among EU countries, the enrollment ratio
in Sweden’s higher education institutions is relatively high, with the percentage ofenrollment reaching 65% in 2008 (OECD 2010).

The policies establishing equal

opportunity to access HEIs regardless of geographical, economic or gender dimensions,and the idea of higher education as lifelong learning have reinforced the ratio. The
average age of enrollment is 22, which is slightly higher than the average age inOECD countries, 20.4. Högskolverket elucidated that the reason such a number ofstudents are surging to participate in higher education in Sweden is that higher
education is expanding through the consolidation of the system in the form of distanceor correspondence learning, as well as through the spread of the idea of higher
education as lifelong learning (Högskolverket 2010).

The government aims to

improve the enrollment ratio in the under-25 age group from 45% to 50%.
According to the latest report in 2011, the number of students who attend bachelor
and master courses is 369,000, with 321,000 being full-time students. This number
shows that more students are enrolling in higher education institutions than everbefore. Conversely, students acquire fewer credits; it has deteriorated to 78% of thestudents earned at least some credits in the year 2009/2010 from 83% in 2004/2005.
HEIs are concerned about the decline in performance because the students’performance – the situation of earning credits among full-time students – and thenumber of enrolled students are the basis of resource allocation at the bachelor andmaster levels.
According to the enrollment data in autumn 2011, 3,600 students out of 5,700
applicants obtained admissions from Uppsala University. At Lund University, 5,400
of 8,800 were admitted, and 5,400 of 7,700 received admissions to Stockholm
University. Applicants are ranked according to their academic results at the end of
their upper secondary education or Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test, and then atleast one-third of applicants are selected from the number of applicants.

HEIs

actually admit more the number of applicants than the prescriptions. HEIs are
opening their doors to a broader range of applicants.

The number of students

enrolled in universities has continued to rise; 72,000 enrolled in 2002, 82,000 in 2005,
and more than 100,000 in 2009. It is because young people who could not enter thejob market because of the weak economy flock to the universities (Högskolverket2011).

As described above, the system of HEIs is facing an increasing number of enrollees
and an expansion of the teaching staff, which implies that the government must
absorb increased costs in the public universities. The resource allocation system
based on the number of full-time students and the earning of credits was introducedby the Higher Education Reform in 1993. Engwall (2007) suggests, however, thatthe introduction of the resource allocation system led higher education circles tocontrol students’ performance.

In other words, to avoid a budget retrenchment,

HEIs are suspected of allowing students with low grades to pass courses. In order toearn public confidence, HEIs sought another assessment criterion to allow outsiders
to evaluate the quality of their education (Engwall 2007).
The next section includes a further discussion on how the quality assurance
framework and learning outcomes are fostered, not only by the adoption at thebachelor and master levels, but also by the initiation of the funding systems.

Table 1．The Number of Students at HEIs
(The number of enrollees/students at 1st and 2nd cycle/ students at 3rd cycle/staff)
Enrollees
TOTAL
Uppsala University
Lund University
Göteborg University
Stockholm UniversityUmeå University
Linköping University
Karolinska InstituteRoyal Institute of TechnologyLuleå University of Technology
The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Karlstad University
Linneas University (Växjö University and Kalmar
University)Örebro University
Mid Sweden University
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Chalmers University of Technology(private)
Stockholm School of Economics(private)
Jönköping University College(private)
Malmö University College
Mälardalen University College
The Swedish School of Sport and Health SciencesBorås University College
Dalarna University College
Gotland University College
Gälve University College
Halmstad University College
Kristianstad University College
University of Skövde
Swedish National Defense College
Södertörn University College
University West
University of Dance and Circus
University College of Arts, Craft and Design
Royal University College of Fine Arts
University College of Film, Radio, Television and
TheatreRoyal College of Music in Stockholm
Stockholm University College of Opera
Stockholm Academy of Dramatic Arts

199,816
12,311
14,03313,80017,74014,032
8,394
2,716
8,078
5,725
2,547
6,033

1st and 2nd
cycle
369,291
26,341
31,851
32,76436,065
21,583
20,882
7,333
15,146
9,796
5,058
11,424

17,693
1,774
2,505
1,635
1,520
1,087
1,169
2,184
1,793
518
634
226

Teaching
staff
46,605
4,034
4,985
4,177
3,355
3,134
2,522
3,637
2,413
1,015
2,609
955

3rd cycle

14,986

20,728

268

1,495

6,472
13,446
5,404
3,378
728
6,783
8,550
4,874
387
5,160
9,777
4,977
7,093
6,290
6,534
5,134
517
5,533
4,548
111
300
83

12,713
12,586
5,645
9,466
1,731
11,87015,182
9,857
476
8,043
11,058
4,431
9,592
6,854
8,277
7,022
636
10,021
6,741
213
732
238

449
206
116
1,127
126
150
86
132
-

906
791
452
1,765
203
623
1,191
755
82
555
584
182
529
490
453
410
324
638
472
61
137
48

95

195

-

53

426
16
78

999
39
85

-

172
20
33

Source: Högskoleverket. (2011). Rapport 2011:8 R Universitet & Högskolor
Högskoleverkets årsrapport 2011.

Note: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Ministry of Defense haveexclusive authority on The Swedish University of Agricultural Science andSwedish National Defense College regarding resource allocation. However,they should follow Higher Education Ordinances when they award grades.

3. The Background of the Introduction of Learning Outcomes
3.1. The Background of the Formulation of the Quality Assurance Framework
The beginning of this section attempts to present an overview of the current state of
the quality assurance framework before examining the strategy for learning outcomes
since the learning outcomes are outlined in the quality assurance framework.
As described above, the 1993 Higher Education Reform promoted debatesconcerning the quality of higher education. Since then, HEIs have received greater
autonomy, not only to set the criteria for selecting enrollees but also to determine thecurriculum and learning outcomes which students are expected to achieve. In 1995,
the quality assurance framework was formulated by the government. The following
four points were set: (1) the accreditation of the academic degree, (2) the internal
quality assurance system, (3) the quality of education in each course, and (4) the
degree of students’ participation, partnership with private sector, internationalizationand gender balance. In 2007, Sweden acceded to the Bologna Processii and unified
the education system into the 1st cycle (3 years for bachelor degree), 2nd cycle (2 years
for master degree) and 3rd cycle (3 years for doctoral degree). The learning content
and outcomes of evaluation in education became a center of focus through thereinforcement of policies in quality assurance. HEIs face challenges in finding ways
to evaluate and assure students’ academic achievements because students’ learning
outcomes are reflected in not only resource allocation but also quality assurance.
The previous evaluation for quality assurance implemented by Högskolverket wasused until 2009. The former evaluation was based on five points, which were: (1)accreditation, (2) thematic studies, (3) evaluation of education, (4) evaluation ofresearches and studies, and (5) award of excellence in educational environment. In
2010, two more evaluation items were added to the former ones. The additional
items are the number of degrees awarded at the doctoral level and the students’achievements.

Students’ achievements will be evaluated based on students’learning outcomes, review of students’ theses, and questionnaires to students andalumni. Examinations and the evaluation of students’ theses aim to appraise theeducation performance at higher education institutions.

The questionnaire toalumni will be conducted in order to evaluate how the education content atuniversities is beneficial after graduation.
Based on the results of the evaluation including learning outcomes, Högskolverket

rates programs at higher education institutions on a three-point scale: Very High
Quality, High Quality, and Lack of Quality. The procedure of evaluation occurs at
three levels, which begin with the HEIs followed by a third-party institution andfinally the government and the Diet (Figure 1).

HEIs conduct a self-evaluation

based on their evaluation criteria and method. A third-party institution conducts asite visit and evaluates the report submitted by HEIs. This evaluation is focused onwhether the institution explicitly conveys its educational goals and contents, thegoals are achieved, and the education program is connected with the labor market’s
demand. The positive result of the evaluation, Very High Quality or High Quality,
would be reported to the government, and the amount of the grant would bedetermined.

If the evaluation results in a Lack of Quality designation, theinstitution would be required to undergo a second monitoring. If the evaluation
report was then approved, the resources would be allocated.

If not approved,

however, the right to award degrees would be stripped from the institution.
According to the report from the government, Malmö University and Mälardalen
University showed negative reactions to the resource allocation based on the result ofquality evaluation. It is because HIEs with fewer programs will be given fewer
resources, the qualitative difference between HIEs will be occurred, and thus theconditions will deteriorate further (Prop.2009/10:139).

The government proposedthat a limited amount of total resources should be influenced by the result of
evaluation.

The new allocation system requires consideration to prevent thedifference of education qualities between HIEs.
The new evaluation system thus approves the greater autonomy of institutions,while at the same time reinforcing the implementation of evaluation by internal andexternal institutions. It was generated with the involvement of the Association of
Swedish Higher Education (SUHF: Sveriges Universitiets och Högskoleföbund), theSwedish National Union of Students, the labor market representatives and chambers
at institutions. The remarkable point is that the evaluation result is reflected inresource allocation iii .

Higher education institutions are required to engage inself-evaluation of their educational content to obtain a view of their students, andthey are further required to get involved in the improvement of their education. The
government insisted that assessing learning outcomes is the most important item in
evaluating the quality of educationiv. The next section reviews the index of learningoutcomes.
Figure 1. The Framework of Quality Assurance

HIS

Announcement of evaluation standard

Self Evaluation by HI

Third
institutions

Site Visit by Third Institutions
Evaluation by Experts
Very High
QualityHigh Quality

Government
and Congress

Report to Government

Resource Allocation

Lack of
Quailty

Monitoring

approval
Not
approval

Source: Högskoleverket. (2008) Rapport 2009: 25R Kvalitetsutvärdering för lärande- Högskoleverkets förslag till nya kvalitets-utvärderingar för högskoleutbildningar.
3.2. The Index of Learning OutcomesThis section will examine the strategy of learning outcomes structured as a new
quality assurance framework. In light of the higher education reform for improved
learning outcomes in Europe, Sweden has restructured higher education on the
grounds of the Framework of Qualification for the European Higher Education Area.
Learning outcomes aim to stipulate explicitly what students should learn and whatkind of abilities they should acquire. The new quality assurance system aspires toimprove the visibility and the transparency in higher education. HEIs should follow
the guidelines of learning outcomes that the government outlined and release theirown index of learning outcomes.

The reinforcement of quality assurance withemphasis on learning outcomes functions to strengthen accountability (Kawashima2008). The announcement of learning outcomes, additionally, would be a worthwhilesource for students to conceive their own learning program.

It would provide

students with more information about specific learning programs so they can decide
which institution to attend.

Learning outcomes are believed to prevent

inconsistencies between the educational content and students’ needs.
Learning outcomes would be evaluated based on three sections: intended learning
outcomes and examination, achieved learning outcomes, and students’ experience andinfluence.

“Intended learning outcomes and examination” is composed of“knowledge and understanding”, “competence and skills”, and “judgment andapproach”, as will hereinafter be described in detail.
“Achieved learning outcomes” would be evaluated based on students’ study
outcomes, such as a thesis submitted at the end of courses. The purpose is not toevaluate students’ abilities but to assess whether students accomplish the goals set
for the end of courses.
“Judgment and approach” is to ask questions regarding students’ and alumni’ssatisfaction with education at HEIs. The students’ questionnaire survey has been
conducted in Australia and the U.K. as one of the evaluation methods for higher
education institutions. Sweden will develop a new questionnaire with adjustments
appropriate for the Swedish case compared to those of Australia and the U.K.
According to Aoyama, Kominato and Torii (2004), the Course Experience
Questionnaire survey is conducted nationwide in Australia.

Universities inAustralia are expected to develop their own course experience questionnaires bytaking advantage of the scale stipulated by the Department of Higher Education andScience Training in Australia.. The questionnaire is comprised of 11 scales, which
are: (1) Good Teaching Scale, (2) Generic Skill Scale, (3) Overall Satisfaction Item, (4)Clear Goals and Standards Scale, (5) Appropriate Assessment Scale, (6) Appropriate
Workload Scale, (7) Student Survey Scale, (8) Learning Resource Scale, (9) Learning
Community Scale, (10) Graduate Qualities Scale, and (11) Intellectual Motivation
Scale.

A questionnaire survey modeled on those of Australia would be able toperceive the quality of students’ academic achievements as defined by the article.
The questionnaire survey, therefore, would be useful to examine how the acquired
knowledge, skills and abilities through higher education are exerted in a real life.
The Swedish government would be required to investigate whether thosequestionnaires are administered smoothly.

The requirement to use this type ofquestionnaire becomes effective in 2013, so further consideration will be needed
hereafter.
As mentioned above, “Intended learning outcomes and examination” constitutes

three areas: “Knowledge and Understanding”, “Competence and Skills”, and“Judgment and Approach”. An example of the indication of this learning outcome in
the 1st cycle and 2nd cycle is as shown in Table 2. “Knowledge and Understanding”
aims for students to acquire basic knowledge regarding their major fields.
“Competence and Skills” refers to students acquiring the critical thinking andenhanced information-gathering capabilities necessary for self-sustaining problem
resolution. It is also meant to develop the ability of presentation, or writing reports inorder to deliver their opinions. “Judgment and Approach” aims to develop the ability
to consider academic significance from various aspects. Students must acknowledge
a connection between knowledge and society, and to realize the necessity ofcontinuous learning. The content of intended learning outcomes and examination
involves knowledge, skill and abilities which are defined as students’ academic
achievements at the first, second and third definitions of the article. Students are
required to acquire knowledge about major academic fields, develop an attitude tolearn autonomously, cultivate abilities of critical thinking and problem resolution,and gain skills for discussion and communication through the courses of higher
education institutions.
Högskolverket mentioned that a high value must be placed on the evaluation oflearning outcomes to increase the quality of higher education. A loose regulation,
therefore, is imposed on an exit from higher education institutions by introducing
learning outcomes at the end of courses. The next section will uncover the negative
aspects of higher education funding and the depression of the graduation rate ofstudents. It should be noted that learning outcomes not only set regulations on theentrance and exit of students but also help higher education institutions become
engaged in the issues mentioned above.

Table 2. Learning Outcomes--

The 1st cycle(Bachelor’s degree)

The 2nd cycle（Magister’s degree）v

Knowledge and understanding

Knowledge and understanding

demonstrate knowledge andunderstanding in the main fieldof study including knowledge ofthe disciplinary foundation of the
field
understand applicable
methodologies in the field,
specialized study in some aspectof the field as well as awarenessof current research issues--

Competence and skills-

demonstrate the ability toresearch, gather, evaluate andcritically interpret the relevant
information for a formulated
problem and also discuss issues
critically-demonstrate the ability to solve
problems autonomously
demonstrate the ability to present
and discuss problems andsolutions in speech and writing

-

-

-

-

Competence and skills--

demonstrate the ability toidentify and formulate issues
autonomously as well as to planand, using appropriate methods,
undertake advanced tasks withinpredetermined time frames
demonstrate the ability in speech
and writing to report clearly anddiscuss his or her conclusions andthe knowledge and arguments on
which they are based in dialogue
with different audiences
demonstrate the skills requiredfor participation in research anddevelopment work or employment
in some other qualified capacity--

demonstrate knowledge andunderstanding in the main fieldof study including knowledge ofthe disciplinary foundation of the
field
demonstrate specialized
methodological knowledge in themain field of study

Competence and skills

demonstrate the ability tointegrate knowledge and analyze,
assess and deal with complex
phenomena, issues and situations
even with limited information

Judgment and approachdemonstrate the ability to makeassessments in the main field ofstudy informed by relevant
disciplinary, social and ethicalissuesdemonstrate insight into the roleof knowledge in society and the
responsibility of the individual

Knowledge and understanding
-

-

-

-

demonstrate knowledge andunderstanding in the main fieldof study including knowledge ofthe disciplinary foundation of the
field
demonstrate specialized
methodological knowledge in themain field of study

The 2nd cycle (Master’s degree）--

Judgment and approachdemonstrate the ability tocritically and systematicallyintegrate knowledge and analyze,
assess and deal with complex
phenomena, issues and situations
with limited information
demonstrate the ability toidentify and formulate issues
autonomously as well as to planand, using appropriate methods,
undertake advanced tasks withinpredetermined time frames
demonstrate the ability in speech
and writing to report clearly anddiscuss his or her conclusions andthe knowledge and arguments on
which they are based in dialogue
with different audiences
demonstrate the skills requiredfor participation in research anddevelopment work or employment
in some other qualified capacity
Judgment and approach-demonstrate the ability to makeassessments in the main field ofstudy informed by relevant
disciplinary, social and ethicalissues and also to demonstrateawareness of ethical aspects ofresearch and development work-

demonstrate the ability to makeassessments in the main field ofstudy informed by relevant
disciplinary, social and ethicalissues and also to demonstrateawareness of ethical aspects ofresearch and development work-

demonstrate insight into thepossibilities and limitations ofresearch, its role in society andthe responsibility of theindividual
demonstrate the ability toidentify the personal need forfurther knowledge and takeresponsibility for his or her
ongoing learning-

demonstrate insight into thepossibilities and limitations ofresearch, its role in society andthe responsibility of theindividual
demonstrate the ability toidentify the personal need forfurther knowledge and takeresponsibility for his or her
ongoing learning

demonstrate the ability toidentify the need for further
knowledge and ongoing learning--

Source: Högskoleverket. (2011). National Qualifications Framework.

4. Higher Education Finance
The proportion of public expenditure on higher education in 2007 in Sweden was
3.4%. Compared with the average of OECD countries (3.0%), the U.K. (2.0%) andJapan (1.7%), Sweden is characterized by high levels of public expenditure on higher
education.

Table 3 shows the proportion of government expenditure on higher

education.

Following the Nordic model of higher education, tuition of higher

education is free, which means that the great costs involved in higher education arecovered by the national treasury (Fägerlind and Strömqvist 2004). The proportion of
government expenditure on higher education was 89.3%, much higher than that ofOECD countries, at 68.9% (OECD 2010) (Table 3). A similar tendency can be seen in
the Nordic countries: Denmark (96.5%), Finland (95.7%), and Norway (97.0%). The
allocation of government expenditure on higher education, however, has been on a
downward trend since 1995.

Högskolverket announced that 81% of the public

expenditure was distributed to higher education in 2009.
Table 3．Transition of the Proportion of Government Expenditure on Higher
Education
1995

2000

2002

2004

2006

2007

Denmark

99.4

97.6

97.9

96.7

96.4

96.5

Finland
Iceland

97.8
m

97.2
91.8

96.3
91.4

96.3
90.3

95.5
90.2

95.7
91.0

NorwaySweden

93.7
93.6

96.3
91.3

96.3
90.0

100.0
88.4

m
89.1

97.0
89.3

U.K.
U.S.A.

80.0
37.4

67.7
31.1

72.0
39.5

69.6
35.4

64.8
34.0

35.8
31.6

Japan

35.1

38.5

35.3

36.6

32.2

32.5

OECD
Countries

77.3

75.7

74.9

74.1

68.8

68.9

Source: Table B3.3. Trends in relative proportions of public expenditure on
educational institutions and index of change between 1995 and 2007
(2000 = 100), for tertiary education (1995, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007)/OECD Education at a Glance 2010.
Note: (m) shows that data is not available
The total amount of revenue spent on the higher education field (the 1st and 2nd
cycle) in 2010 was SEK 25.6 billion, and 88% of that was funded by the government.
As presented previously, the allocation to the 1st and 2nd cycles is determined by thenumber of full-time students and the number of students who passed each year.
Compared with Japan and the U.S.A, where the calculation of public funding
allocation is based on input factors alone – the number of students, teaching staffs
and facilities – Sweden puts emphasis on both input and output. The calculation
focusing on output is characterized as the Nordic Model. It can be similarly seen in
Denmark, Iceland and Finland (Fägerlind and Strömqvist 2004).
The current budget allocation is based on: (1) the number of full-time students
during a year, and (2) the number of credits students earned.

The education

expenses differ depending on academic fields, so they are calculated on the basis ofenumeration data which are classified into 15 groups.

Table 4 shows theenumeration data in each academic field in 2011. The enumeration data fluctuate
depending on the number of students. In 2009, the amount granted per student was
SEK 20,866 and the amount per student’s credit earning was SEK18,315 in the fields
of cultural science, social science, theology and law; by 2011, the amounts edged up
slightly to SEK 21,614 (per student) and SEK 18,972 (per credit). A glance at Table
4 will reveal that the total amount of funding in a field for which a small number ofstudents enrolls is relatively higher than that of a larger number. In other words,
the current allocation system is not likely to assure quality of education as long as it
is contingent on quantity, the number of students. The government indicated thatthe current allocation system focusing on the number of students and credit earnings
would ensure the quality of education (Prop. 2009). The allocation system is basedon quantity, such as the number of students and their credits earned, but to improve
the quality of education, the content of education at HEIs, not the quantity, should be
stressed. For this purpose, the issues of low performance and students who are incourses longer than the three years they are supposed to be there should be addressedby HEIs. The strategy of learning outcomes should be of significance in designingeffective education at HEIs and enhancing competitiveness in an internationalsociety.

Table 4．The Amount of Funding to Each Academic Field
Academic Field
Humanistic,
Social Sciences,
Theological, Legal
Natural Science
Healthcare
Education
MedicalOthersMusic
DesignSportsDentistryArt
Media
Theater
Dance
Opera

Compensation per
FET student 2011,
KronorCompensation per
full year
performance, 2011,
KronorDistribution of Full
Time Students,
2010, percentage

21 61418 97241.9

49 64552 77934 45258 97939 869121 367
140 679
102 499
43 646
199 718285 414279 680
196 699289 23141 86645 71340 57571 74032 38776 73885 71147 43350 84285 742
228 628
139 306
108 687
173 021

33.1
7.4
7.0
5.3
2.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

Source: Högskoleverket. (2011). Rapport 2011:8 R Universitet & Högskolor
Högskoleverkets årsrapport 2011.

5. Conclusions – the Prospects and Challenges of the Strategy for Learning Outcomesin Sweden
The government pursues the goal that the younger generation will form aknowledgeable society by taking advantage of the opportunity to receive higher
education. The circumstances concerning HEIs are not optimistic. In addition to
the high average age of enrollees, the number of students entering HEIs after
graduation from upper secondary education tends to increase with the recession.
The effect of recession, moreover, makes an impact on students’ paths after
graduation from HEIs. The transition from education to occupation does not always
go smoothly because of low employment rates.

Those who could not findemployment opt for the choice of repeating a course, which causes an extension of theeducation period.

As long as the government injects public money into higher

education, these are pressing issues to be addressed.
Education provided by HEIs is required to be useful for students in real life. HEIs
are expected to cultivate students’ knowledge, attitude of autonomous learning, andability to think critically and solve problems, as well as develop their skills of

discussion and communication. These abilities are evaluated at the end of courses
and programs to determine how much students acquired and how they can exercise
them in a society.
As a final point, I should emphasize the followings as advantages anddisadvantages of using learning outcomes as quality assurance in higher education.
First, as an advantage, learning outcomes would contribute to the effectiveness ofhigher education management by ensuring transparency of higher education andstrengthening accountability of HEIs. Second, the allocation system based on the
results of evaluation will make HEIs involved in the improvement of their education
content.

Third, the improvement of education content, which aims to connect

students’ learning achievement to a desired ability in society, would develop desired
human capital.

On the other hand, the following could be pointed out as

disadvantages of employing learning outcomes.

First, it would be difficult toevaluate students’ learning outcomes depending on a fixed measurement. Although
the amount of knowledge would be measurable, it would be difficult to indicate theamount of skill and ability as an index. Second, the standard of evaluation would
vary among estimators. Since the results of learning outcome evaluations will havean effect on resource allocation, estimators from a third-party institution would need
to be trained in order to evaluate on equitable basis. Third, the allocation system –based on the results of learning outcomes – should be implemented carefully. Moreprecisely, the results of learning outcomes should be evinced in detail in eachacademic field. The current framework of learning outcomes under the framework ofquality assurance presents a broad outline. It should set the desired knowledge,
skills, and abilities through each program in detail to avert the consequence of HEIs
controlling the results of students’ learning outcomes. Fourth, there would be achance that students would not be able to find employment even if students acquired
the desired knowledge and were well-prepared to go into the workforce. Although
HEIs could become engaged in the lessening of students’ long education period, HEIs
would be limited in dealing with the low employment opportunities. With regard to
the transition from education to employment, it should be discussed from anotherside – for example, providing job assistance for students. Finally, an evaluation of
students’ learning outcomes should consider who benefits from the evaluation. The
beneficiaries should be students. The strategy for learning outcomes and the newallocation system need to be discussed further to avoid causing turmoil in theacademic field.

Reference
Allan, J. (1996). Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 93-108.
Engwall, L. (2007). Universities, the State and the Market: Changing Patterns ofUniversity

Governancein Sweden and

Beyond, Higher Education

Management and Policy, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 6.
Fägerlind, I. and Strömqvist, G. (2004). Higher Education Reform in the Global
Context – What Ever Happened to the Nordic Model? In Fägerlind, I. and
Strömqvist, G. (Eds.) Reforming Higher Education in the Nordic Countries –Studies of Change in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden,
UNESCO.
Gallavara, G., Hreinsson, E., Kajaste, M., Lindesjöö, E., Sølvhjelm, C., Sørskår, A. K.,
and Sedigh Zadeh, M. (2008). Learning Outcomes: Common Framework-

Different Approaches to Evaluating Learning Outcomes in the Nordic
Countries. Nordic Quality Assurance Network for Higher Education(NOQA).
Hämäläinen, K., Haakstad,J., Kangasniemi, J., Lindeberg, T., and Sjölund, M. (2001).

Quality Assurance in the Nordic Higher Education – Accreditation-like
Practices, European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
Josefson, K., Pobiega, J., and Stråhlman, C. (2011). Student Participation in
Developing Student Feedback. Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 17, No. 2,
pp. 257-262.
Kim, L. (2004). Massification in a Uniform System of Higher Education – the Swedish
Dilemma. In Fägerlind, I. and Strömqvist, G. (Eds.) Reforming Higher

Education in the Nordic Countries – Studies of Change in Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway and Sweden, UNESCO.
Melton, R. (1996). Learning Outcomes for Higher Education: Some Key Issues.

British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 409-425.
OECD. (2008). OECD Economic Surveys: Sweden. OECD.
OECD. (2010). Education at a Glance. OECD.

Regeringens proposition 2009/10:139, Fokus på kunskap – kvalitet i den högre

utbildningen.
Regeringens proposition 2004/05:162, Ny värld – ny högskola.
Sveriges Officiella Statistik. (2010). Universitet och högskolor -Sökande och antagna

till högskoleutbildning på grundnivå och avancerad nivå höstterminen 2010.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the Quality of Student Learning: theInfluence of Learning Context and Student Approaches to Learning on
Learning Outcomes. Higher Education, Vol. 22, pp. 251-266.
Tuijnman, A. (1990). Dilemmas of Open Admissions Policy: Quality and Efficiency in
Swedish Higher Education. Higher Education, Vol. 20, pp. 443-457.
Högskoleverket. (2008). Rapport 2009: 25R Kvalitetsutvärdering för lärande -Högskoleverkets

förslagtill

nyakvalitets-utvärderingar

för

högskoleutbildningar.
----- (2010). Rapport 2010:10 R, Universitet&högskolorHögskoleverkets årsrapport

2010.
----- (2011). Rapport 2011:8 R Universitet & Högskolor Högskoleverkets årsrapport

2011.
----- (2011). National Qualifications Framework.
----- (2011). Generell Vägledning för Självvärdering i Högskoleverkets System för

Kvalitetsutvärdering 2011–2014.
Aoyama, K., Kominato, T., and Torii, A. (2004). The Improvement of Higher EducationinSidneyUniversity

Questionnaire: SCEQ.

–

Focusing

onStudent

CourseExperience

Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 4, pp.

205-222.
Kawashima, T. (2008). The International Movement of Higher Education Reform
Focusing on Learning Outcomes and the Implications to Japan. Nagoya

Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 8, pp. 173-191.
Matsuzaki, I. (1976). Life and Education for Nordic in Antiquity and Medieval. In
Umene, S. and Association for Education History in World (Eds.) Education

History in Nordic, Kodansha.

i The three HEIs are: Chalmers University of Technology, the Stockholm School of
Economics, Jönköping University Foundation.
ii The Bologna process aims to facilitate exchange and cooperation of higher education
institutions in Europe, and to reinforce international competitiveness. The education
was unified such as three years for bachelors (1st cycle), two years for masters (2ndcycle), and three years for doctors (3rd cycle).
iii The new resource allocation would be implemented from 2013.
iv Regeringens proposition 2009/10:139 Fokus på kunskap – kvalitet i den högre

utbildningen.

There are two kinds of 2nd cycle in Sweden, Magisterexamen for one year andMasterexamen for two years. Magisterexamen is maintained after joining thev

Bologna Process.

スウェーデンの高等教育機関におけるラーニング・アウトカムズ政策の動向
武寛子（神戸大学

国際協力研究科）

要旨

本稿は、スウェーデンにおけるラーニング・アウトカムズ政策の動向について考察し、学士課程、修士課程におけるラーニング・アウトカムズの評価がいかなる利点・欠点をもつのかを考究する。学士、修士課程に焦点をあてるのは、これらの課程においてラー
ニング・アウトカムズによる評価結果が予算配分に反映されることがその理由である。
近年、学生の「学習成果（ラーニング・アウトカムズ）」は大学における教育の質の評価基準の一つとしてみなされており、その枠組の構築が進められている。学習者である大学生が大学卒業時にどのような知識と能力を身につけているべきかを評価しようというものである。スウェーデン国内においても 2007 年に構築された新たな質保証シ
ステムのひとつに学生の学習成果が含まれることになった。1977 年の高等教育改革以来、大学は現実社会で求められる知識とスキルを提供することが重視されてきた。つまり、大学が学生に対して習得させるべき知識やスキルは社会の需要に適応していることが求められており、大学と社会との結びつきは主要なテーマだといえる。
本文では、スウェーデンの高等教育に関する概要をふまえ、質保証枠組およびラーニ
ング・アウトカムズ導入背景とラーニング・アウトカムズの指標について詳述した後、高等教育の内部効率性の問題について考究する。さらに、高等教育の財政問題を検討することで、ラーニング・アウトカムズがもたらす効果と問題点について考察している。