My presentation is of the results of a participant enquiry case study looking at how the Bologna process was re-contextualised into pedagogic communication and pedagogic practice within my own field of practice. The case study concerns the implementation of the Bologna process in Swedish Higher education in 2007, and in particular the organization of courses around student learning outcomes.

My case study is theoretically informed by the theories of Basil Bernstein, particularly his concepts of the pedagogic device, pedagogic discourse, pedagogic practice and “ integrated” and “collection” curriculums.  It is premised on the assumption that official policy messages change  and are recontextualised as they move across the levels of the pedagogic device. It traces the recontextualisation of Bologna process from the official policy discourse to the implementation at the micro level. At the micro level data was produced  through the analysis of course documentation, teacher planning meetings and  interviews with teachers.

In policy discourses the Bologna process has been presented as a means to  modernize higher education, involving a “paradigm shift” from a traditional “teacher centred” approach to a “student centred” approach.  At the local level the significance of the Bologna process was interpreted in different ways by teachers. The data produced suggests that the Bologna process brought forward issues that concerned the organization of student learning in terms of learning outcomes, the relative influence of teachers over course content and perceived challenges to teachers’ usual modes of practice

As far as the influence on pedagogic practice is concerned, the data produced suggests that the Bologna process did little to make courses more “student cented” . Students had little control over the selection of content, order and pace of learning. The role of the teacher remained mainly one of instructor rather than coach/mentor and teachers had almost full power and control over the content of teaching and the form of examinations. Teacher assessment mainly emphasized deficits in students’ knowledge. Most student learning outcomes were based on depersonalized, formal ‘school knowledge’, demanding conceptual or procedural knowledge, with an emphasis on understanding or applying. There was little scope in the courses for student criticism of accepted knowledge and practice, including of the learning outcomes themselves.