Learning outcomes.

As I transitioned from a technical role to teaching, I encountered learning outcomes (LOs) as a relatively new concept. I’ve always set myself goals on what I hope to achieve and deliver within a session, but I have to admit as a Technical member of staff I didn’t take much notice of LOs or Assessment Briefs until I started teaching.

When delivering a new Assessment Brief to students, the difficult part is ensuring all students understand the importance of the LOs, and how they ensure they achieve the LOs within their work.

During a tutorial with Carys (the day before Workshop 4) we did end up discussing LOs – Carys gave me feedback on my Observational teaching. I presented one of my PowerPoint from a Moodboard session with Year 1 Bags and Accessories. I set some informal LOs for the session so the students would know what to expect; Carys suggested I use verbs in my LOs e.g. “You will be able to create…” or “You will be able to experiment…”  My LO’s mostly explained what I would hope the students would learn and achieve in the lesson.

For Workshop 4, I read Nicholas Addison’s paper “Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation”. It was hard to digest initially, but I found myself pondering over a few thoughts afterwards. There are benefits and deficits of presenting LOs to students, I hadn’t realised there would be as many and the discussion would be as diverse and interesting. In general, HE institutions use LOs for quality, efficiency, widening participation, and inclusion. Through the reading I concluded that advocates claim LOs provide consistency, clarity, and fairness in assessment, aiding learner choice and recognition. LOs are also associated with student-centred learning but may prioritize institutional goals and bureaucratic systems.

The paper discusses an alternative framework, Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (please see figure 2 below)

Which focuses on objectives and dynamic processes in curriculum design.CHAT “ is an extension from the Vygotskian model (Stetsenko 2008) which takes into account three additional concepts: rules, community and division of labour. By foregrounding rules, CHAT recognises domain-specific practices, acknowledging specific learning environments and disciplinary traditions but seeking to develop them. CHAT accepts that learning is not an isolated event but has an impact on communities outside the educational institution; in other words, CHAT design recognises the wider social implications of learning. It also understands that to realise real-world objectives (not simulated or reproductive ones) activity may need to be divided, for in achieving complex objectives learners may be required to do different things (here there cannot be common outcomes)”. p.319

What worries me about LOs, is they may hinder creativity by imposing predetermined outcomes and stifling organic thinking. In a creative field, this is ultimately doing the opposite of what we as creative tutors hope to achieve. Whilst in Workshop 4, we had the opportunity to discuss our experience of LOs further, my group included Joao, Laura and Stephanie, and we identified the following –

Strengths-

• Reduce personal judgement (or preference) and frame as a challenge to apply creative thinking.
• Freedom to explore creatively within the descriptors.
• Clearly explaining what worked and how to improve.
• Art and Design LOs offer a range of possibilities and outcomes; no absolutes (‘right’ or ‘wrong’).

Weaknesses-

• Managing scope and scale of projects; ensuring reasonable and attainable boundaries for level and unit contact hours.
• LOs may hinder creativity by imposing predetermined outcomes and stifling organic thinking.
• Personal taste and not applying judgment based on personal likes or dislikes.
• The use of academic language in feedback against Learning outcomes can be confusing.
• Tutors’ understanding of the LOs and how they perceive them when marking.

Opportunities –

• Simplify language (disciplinary terms of articulation) and ensure the LO is measurable.
• A holistic approach to assessing and grading.
• Autonomy in individual student learning journeys is marked by curiosity; tutors are not ‘gatekeepers of knowledge’ who need to validate their ideas.
• Experimentation-driven in a practice-based approach encourages creativity & liberty.

Threats –

• Low language capabilities and comprehension are often a barrier in communication between students and tutors.
• Students expect to get an A Grade if they evidence the basic requirements of the learning outcome, ignoring the standards of creative achievement that are not listed in learning outcomes.
• “The Hidden Curriculum”: Detachment from resources beyond the institution; ignoring the lived experiences and informal learning opportunities associated with living/studying in London.
• Students may not always understand verbal feedback in tutorials related to grades and written feedback against the learning outcomes; compounded by not seeking clarification or engaging in dialogue to make feedback meaningful/actionable.

Whilst discussing the LOs with much more experienced educators, it was evident they had thought more about the LOs and how they helped and hindered the student’s progression. I found the discussion eye-opening, and I will certainly look at the LOs in a different light in future. I wish we had more time to discuss UAL’s Creative Attribute frameworks and also hear my group’s thoughts on how effective they think the Assessment Criteria and the LOs go hand in hand to help students and tutors (especially when marking). I hope to create meaningful LOs in future to positively influence and inspire the students.

Additionally, this sentence below stood out when I researched LOs –

“The more attention we pay to curriculum design and development, the more likely it is we can provide transparency for our students regarding the intended learning outcomes for any course or programme, and the more clear we can be in aligning our assessment strategies and processes with the intended learning outcomes.”

A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. (2008). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.  p.40

As acting course leader this year, taking charge of Unit Briefs and noting down how we can develop them for future learning has become a priority; I will soon be working on the course Enhancement Plan therefore recognising and noting developments will be key. Although our course has gone through evaluation recently, there are elements of units that still feel uncertain, e.g. some Assessment Briefs are vague; if these documents were more specific it would help both academics and students know exactly what the intended outcomes are in each unit, there would be less ambiguity in the units.

Please find below – Nicholas Addison’s paper “Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation”