I am not surprised that objections have been flooding in about the ILT's proposals ("A club no one wants to join", THES, April 9). It is not just that evidence must be presented to support 24 teaching "outcomes" that is objectionable, but the language of "outcomes" itself.
Once the "outcome" of a course was the level of attainment of the student as assessed. It seems to have become a proleptic way of speaking in which the distinction between an aim or objective and its achievement is elided. Perhaps the elision is done to suggest that modern methods can guarantee the achievement of the specified objectives ("We have ways of making you understand"). Is this the language of educational control-freaks?
Grenville Wall Vantaa, Finland