Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions,Practices,and Attitudes Towards the Use of Intended Learning Outcomes in the Classroom

Abstract

Integrating intended learning outcomes (ILOs) in educational frameworks has proven to be an essential strategy for enhancing teaching effectiveness and student learning across various disciplines. ILOs serve as precise statements outlining the knowledge and competencies that students should acquire by the end of a course or lesson, functioning as roadmaps for teachers and students, delineating the essential skills and knowledge required for success. The current study investigated teachers’ perceptions, practices, and attitudes towards the utilisation of ILOs in their classrooms. The data was gathered from 12 purposefully selected participants from 12 different primary schools through participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. The collected data was analysed thematically. The results indicate that while many teachers recognise the value of ILOs, there is often a discrepancy between their understanding and practical application. This disparity arises from a lack of familiarity with instructional design principles or inadequate opportunities for professional development. The study highlights the importance of conducting a more in-depth examination of teachers’ perceptions to identify areas that require specialised support and professional growth initiatives.

Keywords

intended learning outcome professional development teacher perception teacher practices teacher attitudes

Introduction

Incorporating intended learning outcomes (ILOs) within educational frameworks has garnered significant attention from educators, ultimately reshaping the educational landscape and informing contemporary teaching practices. ILOs, which are concise statements that outline the anticipated student knowledge and skills, serve as essential benchmarks for structuring curricula, shaping pedagogical strategies, and assessing student achievement. The complex relationship between teachers’ perceptions, practices, and attitudes towards ILOs is crucial in understanding the manner in which they influence the teaching-learning process. Despite this growing attention, there is a notable gap in understanding how teachers in Fiji perceive and implement ILOs in their classrooms, which necessitates further investigation.

Previous studies (e.g. Biggs, 2011; Loughlin et al., 2020; Nyamekye et al., 2023) have primarily focused on broader educational contexts, leaving a lack of region-specific insights that address the unique challenges faced by teachers in Fiji. According to Biggs and Tang (2011), ILOs play a critical role in fostering deeper learning experiences by clearly articulating the intended learning outcomes. These outcomes serve as compass points guiding both teachers and students throughout their learning journey (Biggs et al., 2022). Furthermore, Loughlin et al. (2020) emphasise the necessity of aligning teaching practices and assessments with these predefined outcomes to achieve optimal educational goals. The perceptions of teachers hold a pivotal position in ensuring the successful implementation of ILOs within the educational environment. Research conducted by Nyamekye et al. (2023) indicates that, while many educators recognise the significance of ILOs, a disparity exists in their comprehension and practical application. This discrepancy often arises from a lack of familiarity with instructional design principles or insufficient opportunities for professional development focused on effectively incorporating ILO into teaching methods (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989). In the context of Fiji, challenges such as limited access to training resources, outdated pedagogical practices, and cultural attitudes towards education may further complicate the adoption of ILOs. There is limited research that specifically examines how teachers in Fiji navigate these challenges within the constraints of local curriculum policies and institutional expectations. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this gap by providing empirical evidence on the contextual barriers and facilitators to effective ILO implementation. More specifically, it explores teachers’ perceptions, practices, and attitudes concerning the use of ILOs in Fijian classrooms. To guide this investigation, the study addresses the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are teachers’ perceptions of intended learning outcomes in the classroom?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do teachers integrate intended learning outcomes into their classroom practices?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): What attitudes do teachers hold towards the use of intended learning outcomes in teaching and learning?

Literature Review

Teachers’ Perception of ILOs

Incorporating intended learning outcomes (ILOs) in educational frameworks has proven to be a crucial strategy for boosting teaching efficacy and enhancing student learning across various disciplines. ILOs are specific declarations (precise statements) that outline the knowledge and competencies students should acquire by the end of a course or lesson (Alfauzan & Tarchouna, 2017). These outcomes are roadmaps for teachers and students, demarcating the essential skills and knowledge needed for ultimate success. The holistic nature of learning outcomes, encompassing knowledge, skills, and abilities, is reiterated by Mugenyi et al. (2017) and Reynders et al. (2020), who emphasise that these outcomes embody the educational goals and comprehension expected from students at the culmination of a learning process. Harris and Clayton (2019) and Rao (2020) expanded this notion by stressing that learning outcomes comprise a blend of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and understanding, encapsulating the multifaceted aspects of student achievement.

Moss and Brookhart (2015) highlights the pivotal role of learning objectives, elucidating their function in delineating expected accomplishments and setting assessment expectations. Ajjawi et al. (2019) further assert that these outcomes guide teaching and learning activities, fostering student engagement and skill development aligned with established learning objectives. Bouck (2017) emphasises that ILOs should encompass cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains, necessitating the inclusion of action verbs such as “define,”“recall,”“demonstrate,” or “choose” to articulate comprehensive learning outcomes. Furthermore, Mahajan and Singh (2017) emphasised the importance of these outcomes as meticulously defined and measurable, acting as vital tools for educators when structuring lesson plans and curricula. Similarly, Supena et al. (2021) and Alfauzan and Tarchouna (2017) emphasise the significance of specificity, clarity, and realism in crafting ILOs, ensuring they remain achievable and aligned with students’ capabilities within a designated timeframe. Furthermore, Kencana (2019) highlighted that learning outcomes pivotally focus on student achievements, encompassing cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains, while providing a structured framework for measurable, active verbs. Finally, Holt et al. (2015) emphasised that well-constructed learning outcomes facilitate pedagogical decisions, allowing educators to effectively tailor their teaching methodologies across various domains to enhance student learning experiences.

Biggs and Tang (2011) emphasised that teachers’ awareness and understanding of ILOs play a pivotal role in their effective implementation. The learning outcomes are generally expressed from the student’s perspective, which include the attributes and capabilities that the student should be able to display upon course completion (McNeill et al., 2012).

Teacher Practices in Implementing ILOs

Teachers employ various strategies to incorporate ILO into their teaching practices. The literature suggests that aligning learning activities, assessments, and instructional methods with stated ILO significantly enhances their implementation (Biggs et al., 2022). However, challenges arise in translating broad curriculum-based ILOs into specific, actionable learning objectives suitable for individual classroom settings (Hejazi, 2021). Furthermore, constraints, such as time limitations and diverse student needs, pose hurdles in tailoring teaching practices to align seamlessly with ILOs (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Furthermore, the objectives set by teachers must clearly state the level of understanding required of students in each lesson. As espoused by Krathwohl (2002), the objectives used to describe the ILO as a result of instruction are usually framed in terms of the subject matter content and a description of what is to be done with or to the content referred to. The study of ILO is important, as learning outcomes form the basis of constructively aligned lessons and help to determine how teachers describe ILO and when and how they make it known to the students.

Attitudes of Teachers Towards ILOs

Teachers’ attitudes towards ILOs significantly influence their willingness to implement them effectively. Tan et al. (2020) highlight a spectrum of attitudes, ranging from enthusiastic embracement to resistance among teachers. Factors that influence positive attitudes often include administrative support, peer collaboration, and belief in the benefits of ILOs in enhancing student learning (Pham, 2022; Smith & Ragan, 2004). On the contrary, resistance may stem from perceived irrelevance, lack of autonomy, or additional workload associated with integrating ILOs (Yuan & Kim, 2015).

Impact of ILOs on Teaching and Learning

The literature highlights the positive correlation between well-implemented ILOs and improved student learning outcomes. When ILOs are effectively aligned with instructional practices and assessment methods, students demonstrate better understanding, engagement, and achievement (Maffei et al., 2022). However, more research is needed to delve deeper into the mechanisms through which ILOs affect various aspects of teaching and learning in diverse educational contexts.

The Present Study

This study sought to investigate teachers’ perceptions, practices, and attitudes toward ILO in their classrooms. In particular, the study aimed to uncover (i) how teachers perceive the intended learning outcomes in their classrooms, (ii) how teachers apply the intended learning outcomes in their classrooms, and (iii) the attitudes of teachers towards the intended learning outcomes.

Research Sites and Context

Fiji, a nation comprised of approximately 330 islands located in the Pacific Ocean between the equator and the South Pole, is characterised by its archipelagic nature. Approximately one-third of its islands are inhabited (Briney, 2016). The Fijian education system is structured into primary, secondary, and higher education. There are seven hundred thirty-seven (737) primary schools in Fiji. The geographical location of Fiji presents significant challenges in delivering education to its children and people, as remoteness and isolation are essential considerations. The Ministry of Education (MoE) faces constant challenges in providing curriculum materials, professional development through workshops, and access to the Internet and communication services to remote schools. The geographical features and isolated position in the Pacific make its location a significant challenge in the delivery of education (Tikoisuva, 2000).

Fiji’s centralised approach to curriculum development is similar to other Pacific island countries (Chand, 2015; Koya, 2015). Since adopting the Fiji National Curriculum Framework (FNCF) in 2013, the education system in Fiji has evolved to an outcome-based approach, allowing students to achieve significant learning outcomes in different ways and at different rates. Teachers have the flexibility to develop different teaching and learning programmes to suit the needs of individual students and facilitate learning through constructivist (student-centred) approaches. The OBE also enables teachers to create clear and detailed assessment criteria that help students learn (Phelps, 2014).

Research Methods and Methodology

Research Design

This research used a qualitative phenomenological methodology. Phenomenology is a method of qualitative inquiry that elucidates the subjective meaning of a phenomenon as experienced by multiple individuals (Finlay, 2012); in this context, the perceptions, practices, and attitudes of teachers in implementing intended learning outcomes in their classroom settings. The utilization of semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and document analysis provides a comprehensive approach to capturing the subjective experiences of the participants. To ensure truthfulness and clarity in the data collection and analysis process, documentation and an example of an observation field note are included in the findings section.

Participants

Participants in this research study were purposefully selected, and the research sample comprised four educational divisions (Eastern, Western, Northern, and Central) throughout the country. For each division, three Year 8 teachers from three different schools were identified as research participants, resulting in a total of 12 participants for the study. The participant information is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participants Information.

Teacher names (pseudonyms)	Gender	Division	Years of experience	Years taught Y8	Highest qualification
Teacher A	M	Western	18	12	Teachers Cert. (P)
Teacher B	M	Western	19	5	Teachers Cert. (P)
Teacher C	F	Western	24	6	BEd (P)
Teacher D	F	Central	8	3	Dip. Ed (Sec)
Teacher E	F	Central	17	6	BEd (P)
Teacher F	M	Central	14	9	BEd (P)
Teacher G	M	Northern	15	4	Teachers Cert. (P)
Teacher H	F	Northern	18	10	BEd (P)
Teacher I	F	Northern	23	16	MEd
Teacher J	M	Eastern	17	8	Teachers Cert. (P)
Teacher K	M	Eastern	12	6	Dip. Ed (P)
Teacher L	F	Eastern	7	4	Dip. Ed (S)

Note. Key: M = male; F = female; P = primary; S = secondary.

The researcher contacted the head teachers of the selected schools by phone and discussed the study and approval from the MEHA. The researcher also confirmed whether the school had a Year 8 teacher who had been teaching the same class for at least the last three years to exclude any new graduates and avoid the inclusion of inexperienced teachers with the Year 8 curriculum and teaching. Once the headteachers confirmed that the Year 8 teachers in their schools met the defined criteria, the researcher sought their permission to conduct the research in their schools.

Participants were approached by phone and email, and the study commenced only after they provided their written consent.

Data Collection and Analysis

The study used participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and documentary analysis as data collection methods. The data collection process was conducted between March and April, corresponding to the first term of the academic year. Before the observation process, the researcher articulated the features to be observed to understand the use of the ILO in the classroom. The researcher observed and recorded multiple lessons, with a total of 10 lessons observed for each participant over the course of two days. An observation protocol was developed prior to the observation process, which included studying the lesson plan and recording the lessons conducted. The observation protocol also included noting the teacher’s delivery of the ILO, as well as the time allocation and the methods of introduction, teaching, learning activities, and assessment components. The information gathered through observation was recorded using field notes, photography, sound recordings, and document collection and organisation. The researcher also sought clarification from the participants at the end of each lesson to obtain feedback on the lesson and assess their feelings about it. Finally, after the observation process was completed, the researcher thanked the participants and informed them about the use of the data and their accessibility to the study.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all participants using an interview guide to ensure optimal use of the agreed-upon interview time. Semi-structured interviews were selected due to their ability to provide a guided yet adaptable method of examining participants’ experiences in depth. This interview format utilises a predetermined set of open-ended questions to maintain uniformity across every interview while allowing participants to elaborate on their answers, convey personal perspectives, and offer context-specific information. The flexibility of semi-structured interviews fostered a conversational and friendly atmosphere, prompting participants to openly share their experiences and concerns concerning the implementation of ILOs. To test the effectiveness of the guiding questions, they were tested with a teacher who was not part of the study. Feedback from the pilot test provided additional editing guidance, such as potential interview prompts. The interview questions included:

How familiar are you with the notion of ILOs?

How do you integrate ILO into lesson planning and classroom activities?

What obstacles do you encounter when integrating ILO into your instructional methods?

What training or support have you received in relation to the use of ILOs?

How do you believe ILOs influence student learning and engagement?

What improvements would you recommend for the better integration of ILOs in the classroom?

The interviews were conducted in a quiet location in the school library, lasting between 20 and 30 minutes, and were recorded using a digital voice recorder. Each transcribed interview was returned to participants within two weeks so that they could review and make any necessary changes to their responses.

The researcher thoroughly selected the documents used in the study, prioritising those that would provide the relevant data and possessed higher quality than those with the largest amount. Syllabi, teachers’ workbooks, lesson plans, and lesson notes were analysed, as they provided a holistic picture of the planned data to be collected. The analysis was recorded as field notes, made simultaneously with classroom observations.

Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data collected from the interviews, offering a systematic approach to identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns within the data. The analysis conformed to Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework, ensuring a thorough and clear approach. The researcher initially familiarised himself with the data by transcribing the interviews and thoroughly reviewing them numerous times to gain a comprehensive understanding. This was followed by the generation of initial codes, during which significant characteristics of the data were carefully identified and labelled. Thereafter, identical codes were put together to create themes, capturing the key trends arising from the data. Themes were subsequently reviewed and modified to accurately represent the participants’ experiences and perceptions. The final step involved defining and naming the themes, followed by a detailed report demonstrating how the themes aligned with the study objectives. This systematic methodology ensured the reliability and credibility of the findings while offering valuable insights into teachers’ perceptions, practices, and attitudes with regard to the implementation of ILOs in their classrooms. Similar processes were followed to analyse the data gathered from participant observation and document records.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues are essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of this research. Before data collection, informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring they were fully aware of the study’s objectives, methodologies, potential risks, and their right to participate voluntarily. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any point without incurring any adverse repercussions. To maintain confidentiality and anonymity, all identifying information was removed or coded to protect participants’ identities, and data was presented in an aggregated way to avoid individual identification. Data storage protocols were established, featuring encrypted electronic files saved in password-protected formats, while physical documents were secured in locked storage accessible only to the researcher. Furthermore, ethical permission was obtained from the appropriate institutional board to guarantee adherence to ethical standards. During the research procedure, participants were treated with respect and equity, with measures implemented to mitigate any potential injury or discomfort.

Results of the Study

The results of this study are presented under three themes captured in line with the research questions posed: teacher perceptions of the ILO, teacher practice of the ILO, and teachers’ attitude towards the ILO, and are supported by direct quotes from the participants. To maintain the anonymity of the participants, only one or two quotes from each individual were used, and these quotes were accompanied by labels to provide context. The author paid close attention to the data during the analysis process to ensure that the findings accurately represented the participants’ perspectives (Guest et al., 2012; Pitchforth et al., 2005).

RQ1: Teacher Perceptions of the Intended Learning Outcome

The ILOs have been established to facilitate students’ learning experiences. When asked to explain the meaning of ILOs, the overwhelming majority of participants exhibited a strong understanding of the concept. In their definitions, common terms included knowledge, skills, attitudes, and descriptions of student achievements. An interviewee stated, “Intended learning outcomes are the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students are expected to acquire during a lesson” (TD–IR). Other responses on the teachers’ perception of ILOs included the following.

The purpose of the intended learning outcomes is to outline what students should be able to achieve through the instruction and learning that takes place in the classroom. These outcomes should clearly state the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students are expected to possess once the lesson is complete. (TA-IR)

The intended learning outcomes focus on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students should acquire during their learning phase. These outcomes should emphasise what students should know or be able to do at the end of a lesson, and they should be observable and assessable so that the teacher can evaluate the learning that has occurred. (TF-IR)

When asked about the appropriate time to disclose the ILOs to students, the participants unanimously agreed that the ILOs should be communicated to the students at the beginning of a lesson. The following comments highlight the perspectives of the participants on this matter.

It is essential to communicate the intended learning outcomes to students before teaching the strands in order to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the objectives of the assessment indicators. By doing so, students will be able to align their prior knowledge with the new information they acquire and have a clear understanding of what they are expected to learn. (TF-IR)

It may be advisable to communicate these outcomes to students at the commencement of a specific lesson, as this would motivate and direct them throughout their learning experience. By being aware of the intended learning outcomes, students can concentrate on the key concepts they are expected to learn. (TG-IR)

When participants were questioned about how the ILO was communicated to the students, they provided several suggestions regarding how this was being done. According to a participant, teaching methods included writing on the blackboard, asking oral questions to students, delivering information directly, projecting content onto the wall, and allowing students to explore the topic as the lesson progressed (TB-IR).

Other responses to the question included the following.

Generally, in my teaching, I try to be subtle in my approach. However, when it comes to the introduction and body of the lesson, I structure it in a way that allows the students to understand the ultimate goal or the main purpose of the lesson. (TE–IR)

Typically, the key learning outcomes for each lesson are clearly outlined on the blackboard, allowing students to thoroughly understand the material they are expected to comprehend by the end of the lesson. (TC-IR)

The MEHA identifies the ILO as an achievement indicator that teachers are entrusted to establish for their students. In response to the question of whether the ILO serves as the basis for the lessons delivered in the classroom, the participants collectively agreed that this was indeed true. One participant expressed his agreement with this viewpoint.

The achievement indicator is a fundamental element of any lesson. Once I have achieved proficiency in this area, I will be able to impart my knowledge to the students with confidence. (TH-IR)

Another interviewee alluded to it:

Before starting instruction, I assess the objectives of the lesson, evaluate the requirements outlined in the syllabus, and design the lesson to align with these objectives.

A summary of teacher perceptions is shown in the Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of Teacher Perceptions.

Sub-category	Teacher perceptions
Intended learning outcome	Knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students are to acquire during the course of a lesson.
	Statements of what students are expected to be able to do.
	Known as an achievement indicator in the Fijian context, and forms the basis of lessons in class.
	Translated to the students at the beginning of the lesson.
	Are made known by writing on the blackboard, asking oral questions to the students, telling the students directly, projecting on the wall, and enabling students to discover the topic as the lesson unfolds.

RQ2: Teacher’s Practice of the Intended Learning Outcome

The study’s findings revealed that most participants agreed that it was important to communicate the ILO to students at the start of a lesson. However, further examination revealed that the participants’ stated beliefs and actual practices were not always aligned. Specifically, one participant who emphasised the significance of students knowing the ILO from the outset failed to communicate it during the lesson. This inconsistency was also observed in around half of the teacher participants.

The participants indicated that it is essential that the ILO is communicated to the students at the beginning or during the lesson. However, the observational data showed that approximately 25% of the participants failed to convey this information to the students. Additionally, an analysis of document records (lesson plans) revealed that some teachers did not consistently record ILO accurately. Specifically, around 25% of the participants used phrases such as “At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to know …” which is problematic because “know” is not an action verb. Furthermore, it was observed that participants who recorded the ILO correctly tended to focus on lower cognitive skills, primarily knowledge and comprehension. For example, when teaching the topic “Olympic Games,” the questions asked by the teacher (TK) were:

How often are the Olympic Games held?

Where will the next game be held?

When was the last game held?

Additionally, the participants reported that they had generally communicated the ILOs to their students in multiple ways. However, the observation data indicated that this was not consistently the case. When asked to explain the discrepancy between their perception and the actual outcomes, the participants asserted that they had anticipated the students would infer the ILO as the lesson progressed. However, there was no tangible evidence to support the notion that the students arrived at this understanding. The following excerpt from a classroom observation illustrates the disconnect between the stated belief in communicating ILOs and actual classroom practice.

The teacher began the lesson by asking the students to recall the previous day’s topic, followed by a short discussion. However, the ILO was neither stated orally nor written on the board. The teacher wrote the topic “States of matter and processes” on the blackboard and proceeded to assign students a group activity. While the students were engaged, no mention of the specific knowledge, skills, or attitudes was made that they were expected to acquire during the lesson. When interviewed afterwards, the teacher explained that “students would figure it out as they go.” However, the students could not clearly articulate the purpose of the activity when asked (Field Note: Teacher C).

This example reinforces the findings of the interview and document analysis, where teachers frequently expressed the value of ILOs, but did not operationalise them consistently during instruction (Table 3).

Table 3.

Summary of Teacher Practice.

Sub-category	Teacher practice
Intended learning outcome	Not made known to students by half the teachers.
	Writing the ILO incorrectly.
	The ILO remains with the teacher.
	Expectation that students will grasp the ILO as the lesson unfolds.

RQ3: Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Intended Learning Outcomes

The observation revealed a state of confusion among the teachers, which was reflected in the lack of coherence between their beliefs and responses to the ILO. Teachers’ observations also indicated a strong desire to finish the lessons quickly rather than focus on clearly articulating and addressing the ILO. This was evident in approximately one-quarter of the participants, who would pick up a book and read it to the students to finish the lesson.

In addition, the field data revealed that approximately half of the teachers were exceptionally supportive of the students and passionate about their teaching. For example, during an English lesson, one participant strongly emphasised phonics and spelling and demonstrated great enthusiasm for the subject matter. The attitude of the students and their responses reflect this. The teacher would take the time to explain concepts to students when needed, and students were even encouraged to display their group work on the walls. In another class, a participant (TH) engaged students in a group activity and moved around to assist them. If the students were unsure about anything, they were encouraged to raise their hands, and the participant was always available to provide guidance and support. The participants also allowed the students to solve problems on the blackboard and provided explanations and solutions where necessary.

The study also revealed that many teachers lacked awareness and a task-based approach rather than a goal-oriented approach. For example, during a mathematics lesson, one of the participants (TF) failed to provide guidance on completing the activities after providing instructions and assigning a task. Instead, the teacher concentrated on the students’ completion of the tasks.

The study findings revealed that some teachers were honest about what they knew and did not know. For example, in one instance, a teacher was upfront about their lack of knowledge and expressed it to their students. In this case, the teacher’s honesty was evident as they lacked content knowledge. Teacher G (TG-OR) is a prime example of this, as she encouraged students to ask questions to clarify their doubts about the reproductive system. When a student asked the teacher to explain the difference between identical and fraternal twins, the teacher could not answer the question because she was unfamiliar with these terms. The teacher admitted that she had not studied science in secondary school and promised to find out and inform the students later. The teacher fulfilled her promise the following day and discussed the matter with the students.

Documentary records and interview data revealed that most teachers were focused on exams, overworked, and experiencing frustration. For example, 1 participant (TD) shared that the school had planned to administer a total of 10 tests, including 7 trial tests, 1 term-end exam, 1 mid-year exam, and an annual exam, all in preparation for the students’ external exam administered by MEHA. The teacher expressed frustration with the excessive number of trial tests, stating that, “This directive to prepare and conduct so many trial tests came from the headteacher. It is really too much” (TD). In addition, the teacher stated that they were required to type out all of the internal examination papers.

A summary of teachers’ attitudes is shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Summary of Teacher Attitude.

Sub-category	Teacher attitude
Intended learning outcome	Confusion – lack of coherence between what teachers believe and how they respond to ILO.
	Desire to have the lessons completed rather than articulating the ILO clearly and focusing on them.
	Lack of knowledge in writing ILO correctly.
	Half of the participants are very helpful, supportive, and enthusiastic in their teaching.
	Teachers are ignorant and task-oriented rather than goal-oriented.
	Expressing honesty in what is known and unknown.
	Cynicism practised in classrooms.
	Teachers are exam-centred, overworked and frustrated.

Discussion of Findings

Theoretical Framing

The findings of this study are framed within constructivist learning theory, which posits that students construct knowledge based on their experiences and interactions. This perspective aligns with the need for teachers to effectively communicate ILO to guide students in their learning journey. By incorporating educational psychology concepts such as Bloom’s Taxonomy, the study offers a deeper understanding of how ILOs shape cognitive development and engagement in the classroom.

Teacher Perceptions of Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO)

The research findings indicate that teachers associate ILO with a particular set of knowledge, abilities, and dispositions that students should acquire at the end of a lesson. These findings are in agreement with previous studies conducted by Alfauzan and Tarchouna (2017), Biggs (2003), Harris and Clayton (2019), Mugenyi et al. (2017), Rao (2020) and Reynders et al. (2020), who define ILO as the learning outcomes that students should be able to demonstrate in terms of knowledge, skills, and understanding, and McNeill et al. (2012), who describes ILO as the traits that students should be able to exhibit upon successful completion of a course.

The study by Biggs (2003) recommended that the ILO be communicated to students at the beginning of their learning journey. However, it appears that this recommendation is not universally implemented. A key theme that emerged from the findings is the variation in teacher practices regarding the timing of ILO communication. The study’s results indicate that a significant portion of the participant teachers agree that the ILO must be conveyed to the students prior to initiating a lesson, while others contend that the ILO must be communicated to the students during the lesson. One possible explanation for this disparity in opinion may be attributed to the teacher’s belief that the timing of the ILO communication is not as critical as its actual delivery. It is also conceivable that participants’ teachers may be uncertain about the necessity of communicating the ILO to students.

The study revealed that the ILO, commonly known as an achievement indicator in the Fijian context, is typically conveyed to students through various means, including writing on the blackboard, oral questioning, and verbal communication combined with PowerPoint presentations. These findings align with those of Biggs et al. (2022) and Maffei et al. (2022), who discovered that teachers employ different strategies to achieve ILO and serve as a guide for meaningful learning. This finding supports the constructivist perspective, emphasising the importance of scaffolding and varied instructional methods to facilitate student learning. Teachers must understand the importance of disclosing the ILO to students. Although the way ILO is communicated may vary, it is clear that students who are aware of it are better equipped to focus on attainable objectives.

Given the findings, it is recommended that educational policymakers in Fiji develop structured guidelines and training programs for teachers to standardize the communication of ILOs. Additionally, professional development initiatives should focus on enhancing teachers’ understanding and implementation of ILOs in a consistent manner across all educational institutions.

Teacher’s Practice of the Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)

A recurring theme observed in the study is the gap between teachers’ theoretical understanding and practical implementation of ILOs. Surprisingly, half of the participating teachers did not explicitly communicate the ILOs to their students. This finding contrasts with previous studies, which have emphasised the importance of defining the ILO at the beginning of a lesson (Biggs, 2003). One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that teachers are motivated by their personal drive to teach and may not prioritise highlighting the expected learning outcomes at the beginning of a lesson. Instead, they may jump right into teaching, leaving students unaware of the intended learning outcomes. This can result in students guessing what they will learn instead of focusing on achieving the desired outcomes. Additionally, teachers may rely on their own experiences of how they were taught as students and believe that these practices will produce similar results. The absence of a mutually agreed-upon ILO between the teacher and student can hinder the learning process. Another potential explanation for this phenomenon is that if teachers clearly communicate the ILOs at the start of the lesson, it could potentially restrict students’ thinking and limit their engagement with the material. By specifying the ILOs, students can only focus on achieving those objectives and may not explore other related concepts or ideas. To bridge the gap between beliefs and practices, educational authorities should introduce monitoring mechanisms to ensure teachers align their instructional practices with stated ILOs. Workshops and refresher courses should be conducted regularly to reinforce the importance of ILO communication and practical application.

Another key finding is the use of lower cognitive skills in communicating the intended learning outcomes. Most outcomes revolve around the recall of facts. As a result, higher-order thinking has been neglected. Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy as a theoretical lens, the findings suggest that teachers primarily focus on lower-order cognitive skills, such as recall and understanding, rather than encouraging analysis, evaluation, and creation. Earlier studies suggest that the objectives set up should clearly specify the level of understanding required by the students for each topic of study (Krathwohl, 2002) and for students to spontaneously use higher-level cognitive processes (Biggs, 2003). This discrepancy may be due to the fact that the MEHA-prepared external examination papers use lower cognitive skills. The researcher’s personal experiences also point to the same, in which, in 2016, in one of the education consultation forums, the then Minister of Education encouraged teachers to use the previous year’s papers to prepare the students for exams to achieve reasonable pass rates. Most of the exam papers were prepared using lower thinking skills. Again, researchers’ personal experiences have shown a general mismatch between what is practised by teachers and the educational philosophy articulated in the FNCF. FNCF aims to develop innovative, critical, and creative thinking and problem-solving skills among students, whereas teachers continue to focus on lower-order thinking skills. Innovative, critical, and creative thinking and problem-solving can only be developed if higher-order thinking is encouraged in classrooms. A national-level curriculum review should be conducted to ensure a balance between lower and higher-order cognitive skills in assessment and teaching practices. Policies should encourage the gradual integration of higher-order thinking into lesson planning and classroom activities. Third, the continued reliance on lower cognitive skills in Fiji’s education system may be attributed to the legacy of the Basic Education and Life Skills (BELS) workshop organised by the Ministry of Education in the 1990s, which encouraged teachers to focus on lower cognitive skills in their assessments. As a result, these deeply rooted practices have persisted despite advances in global educational development. Furthermore, the assumption that teaching can be measured but learning cannot poses a challenge. Teachers can easily cover prescribed syllabi, but managing higher cognitive learning requires significant organisation and planning, which many teachers may not be equipped to do. Moreover, the lack of adequate teacher education and the absence of international perspectives in curriculum delivery add to the problem. Overall, these factors contribute to the preference for lower cognitive skills among teachers, who may find it easier to assess and manage.

Finally, it became apparent that there is a problem with the design of ILOs in terms of using inappropriate verbs, such as “know.” Previous research has shown that when ILOs are effectively developed, they are characterised by being observable, measurable, and student-centred (Molinaro, 2021). One possible explanation for this issue may be the absence of ongoing monitoring and upskilling of teachers in writing ILOs, as well as a lack of preparedness and competencies among teachers.

Teacher Attitudes Towards Intended Learning Outcomes

The research findings highlight a common thread: whilst teachers recognise the significance of ILOs, they grapple with their consistent implementation. This challenge arises from external pressures, notably the requirements of standardised assessments and the expectations set by school leadership.

Teachers believe that by incorporating the ILO, which should be introduced to students at the beginning of a lesson, they will be able to provide students with the desired learning experiences. The outcomes correspond to those of Biggs (2003) and McNeill et al. (2012), who posited that the knowledge and skills that students should acquire upon the completion of a lesson should be made known to them from the outset of the learning process. Teachers’ attitudes may be influenced by their previous teaching experiences and their educational backgrounds. The Ministry of Education should provide incentives for teachers who effectively integrate ILOs into their teaching practices, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and motivation among educators.

The findings showed that teachers exhibit a positive attitude by being helpful, supportive, and enthusiastic about their teaching. This is consistent with Bullock’s (2015) findings, which demonstrated that teachers’ abilities, personalities, and relationships with students are key components of effective teaching. It is possible that teachers’ desire to assist students stems from their intention to achieve high levels of success in exams. Additionally, teachers’ enthusiasm may be influenced by their mentors, such as the guidance they received during their own student days or professional development.

It has been proposed that the curriculum should encourage children to recognise connections in learning, engage in more activities and problem-solving, and offer them a range of tasks (Dangel et al., 2004). However, this was not observed. This inconsistency could be attributed to the structure of external examinations. Schools and teachers are evaluated on these examinations. Poor school performance is often detached from context, and these schools are often labelled as underperforming. As a result, teachers concentrate on achieving good results. This occurs because teachers focus on rushing through the syllabi and placing excessive emphasis on exams, as they are under pressure to ensure that students perform well on these assessments. This suggests that assessment-driven educational environments heavily influence teachers’ attitudes and practices, reinforcing the need for policy interventions to support effective ILO implementation.

Conclusion

This study provides valuable information on teachers’ perceptions, practices, and attitudes towards intended learning outcomes (ILOs) in the educational context. The findings emphasise the importance of effectively communicating ILOs to students, which is also recommended by educational scholars such as Biggs (2003) and McNeill et al. (2012). Although acknowledging the importance of communicating ILOs at the beginning of a lesson, observational data showed that many teachers did not consistently adhere to this practice.

In addition, the study revealed a tendency among teachers to focus on lower-order cognitive skills when formulating ILOs, disregarding the promotion of higher-order thinking as prescribed by educational frameworks such as the Fiji National Curriculum framework. This discrepancy can be attributed to various factors, such as the impact of exam-oriented teaching practices and a historical emphasis on lower cognitive skills in the education system. To bridge this gap between educational philosophy and classroom practices, it is essential to prioritise higher-order thinking skills in teacher training and curriculum development.

Furthermore, the study underscores the need for improved ILO design and communication, with particular attention to the use of appropriate action verbs to ensure clarity and measurability. Ongoing professional development and support for teachers in crafting effective ILOs could contribute to addressing this issue.

Despite these challenges, the study also revealed positive attitudes among teachers towards the concept of ILOs and a genuine desire to support students in their learning journey. Teachers demonstrated enthusiasm and willingness to assist students, as evidenced by their participation in activities and efforts to clarify concepts. However, external pressures, such as exam-centric evaluations and syllabus coverage requirements, may hinder the implementation of more student-centred approaches to teaching and learning.

While this study provides important insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. The small sample size of 12 teachers from different primary schools limits the generalizability of the findings to the broader teaching population. The purposeful sampling approach, although beneficial for gaining in-depth insights, introduces potential sampling biases, as participants may have been more inclined towards discussing ILO-related issues. Future research with a larger and more diverse sample is necessary to validate and expand upon these findings. Additionally, the study primarily relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to social desirability bias, potentially influencing the accuracy of the reported perceptions and practices.

To effectively address the challenges identified in this study, it is essential to implement comprehensive teacher training programs and curriculum development strategies that focus on the integration of ILOs. Regular workshops and professional development sessions should be conducted to help teachers write clear and measurable ILOs using appropriate action verbs. Additionally, mentorship and peer collaboration programs can support new teachers in applying ILOs effectively, while integrating ILO-focused modules into teacher education programs will ensure that pre-service teachers develop a solid understanding of their importance. In terms of curriculum development, existing frameworks should be revised to include clear guidelines and exemplars of ILOs across various subjects and grade levels. Curriculum documents must provide practical strategies for aligning teaching methods and assessments with ILOs, with an emphasis on incorporating higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, evaluation, and creativity. Furthermore, policymakers should prioritize ongoing teacher support initiatives, establish incentive-based programs to encourage best practices and develop monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess the effectiveness of ILO implementation and drive continuous improvement.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Satish Prakash Chand

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

Ajjawi

Tai

Nghia

T. L. H.

Boud

Johnson

Patrick

(2019). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning: The challenges of authentic assessment in a complex context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1639613

Alfauzan

A. A. H.

Tarchouna

(2017). The role of an aligned curriculum design in the achievement of learning outcomes. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 4(3), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2017.43.81.91

Biggs

(2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. New Trends and Innovations, 2(4), 13–17.

Biggs

Tang

(2011). Train-the-trainers: Implementing outcomes-based teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8, 1–19.

Biggs

Tang

Kennedy

(2022). Teaching for quality learning at university (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Bouck

E. C.

(2017). Educational outcomes for secondary students with mild intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 369–382.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Briney

(2016). Fiji: Geography & information. https://www.thoughtco.com/geography-of-fiji-1434590

Bullock

(2015). What makes a good teacher? Exploring student and teacher beliefs on good teaching [Unpublished master’s thesis]. St. Mary’s College of Maryland. https://www.smcm.edu/mat/wp-content/uploads/sites/73/2015/06/Bullock-2015.pdf

10.

Chand

S. P.

(2015). Challenges faced by curriculum developers in implementing multilingual education in Fiji classrooms. Curriculum and Teaching, 30(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/30.1.07

11.

Dangel

J. R.

Guyton

McIntyre

C. B.

(2004). Constructivist pedagogy in primary classrooms: Learning from teachers and their classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24(4), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/1090102040240404

12.

Finlay

(2012). Debating phenomenological methods. In Friesen

Henriksson

Saevi

(Eds.), Hermeneutic phenomenology in education (pp. 17–37). Sense Publishers.

13.

Frederiksen

J. R.

Collins

(1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018009027

14.

Guest

MacQueen

K. M.

Namey

E. E.

(2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc.

15.

Harris

Clayton

(2019). The current emphasis on learning outcomes. International Journal of Training Research, 17(2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2019.1644777

16.

Hattie

Timperley

(2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

17.

Hejazi

B. M.

(2021). Implementation of outcomes-based education in an interdisciplinary design course and curriculum: An action research study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2605662175

18.

Holt

E. A.

Young

Keetch

Larsen

Mollner

(2015). The greatest learning return on your pedagogical investment: Alignment, assessment or in-class instruction? PLoS One, 10(9), e0137446. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137446

19.

Kencana

N. P.

(2019). The alignment of pre-service teachers’ activities with teaching objectives based on Bloom’s taxonomy in an internship program [Master’s thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/196143025.pdf

20.

Koya

C. F.

(2015). Pedagogical practices in Fiji schools. In Poonoosamy

S. N.

Thaman

J. P.

(Eds.), Transforming teaching and learning in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 22–43). UNESCO.

21.

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

22.

Loughlin

Lygo-Baker

Lindberg-Sand

. (2020). Reclaiming constructive alignment. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1816197

23.

Maffei

Boffa

Lupi

Lanzetta

(2022). On the design of constructively aligned educational unit. Education Sciences, 12(7), Article 438. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070438

24.

Mahajan

Singh

M. K. S.

(2017). Importance and benefits of learning outcomes. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22(3), 65–67.

25.

McNeill

Gosper

(2012). Assessment choices to target higher order learning outcomes: The power of academic empowerment. Research in Learning Technology, 20(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.17595

26.

Molinaro

(2021). Institutional learning outcome development for academic planning [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/11310

27.

Moss

C. M.

Brookhart

S. M.

(2015). Advancing formative assessment in every classroom: A guide for instructional leaders. Hawker Brownlow.

28.

Mugenyi

J. K.

Chang

Edmond

(2017). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

29.

Nyamekye

Zengulaaru

Nana

(2023). Junior high schools teachers’ perceptions and practice of constructivism in Ghana: The paradox. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2281195

30.

Pham

H. T. M.

(2022). EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about formative assessment: Case studies of Vietnamese university teachers. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/items/de85b6ab-8593-4bc8-97f1-878528d9fcc0

31.

Phelps

R. P.

(2014). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(4), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2014.921091

32.

Pitchforth

Porter

van Teijlingen

Keenan

K. F.

(2005). Writing up and presenting qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 31(2), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1783/1471189053629653

33.

Rao

N. J.

(2020). Outcome-based education: An outline. Higher Education for the Future, 7(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631119886418

34.

Reynders

Lantz

Ruder

S. M.

Stanford

C. L.

Cole

R. S.

(2020). Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5

35.

Smith

P. L.

Ragan

T. J.

(2004). Instructional design (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Supena

Darmuki

Hariyadi

(2021). The influence of 4C (constructive, critical, creativity, collaborative) learning model on students’ learning outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 873–892.

37.

Tan

S. H. S.

Lim

F. S.

Lee

J. W. Y.

S. Y.

(2020). Intended learning outcomes: Who are they intended for? In Heinrich

Bourke

(Eds.), Research and development in higher education: Next generation, higher education: Challenges, changes and opportunities (Vol. 42, pp. 105–115). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).

38.

Tikoisuva

P. B.

(2000). Fiji today: 2000. Government Printer.

39.

Yuan

Kim

(2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 408–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115571929