Reading about the history, intention and criticism of Learning Outcomes (LO’s) has been a source of incredible frustration and relief for me. Having previously considered them to be an immovable aspect of Higher Education I now realise I had failed to critically address them, but by comparing UAL’s Course Designer: Crafting Learning Outcomes and Nicholas Addison’s Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation I have realised my own position in opposition to them.
Course Designer states that LO’s are “explicit, clear and transparent in the design and delivery of courses” (Currant, Stephens and Staddon, 2019), but I would argue they are the exact opposite. When I am marking student work they receive both the definition of the LO provided by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the definition provided by the course specifically. Although the course LO’s are written as an interpretation of the QAA LO’s these are hard to map onto one another, making it very difficult for me as a tutor (let alone a student) to reconcile the two.
The tone of the Course Designer is patronising, suggesting the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Measurable Verbs (Currant, Stephens and Staddon, 2019), which insinuates a lack of faith in the literacy of teaching staff. Addison lists an intention of LO’s to “establish ‘teacher proof’ scripts” (Addison, 2014) but this only highlights the failure of the system rather than a failure of individuals, as teachers must work to reinterpret the wording of LO’s. It shows they are not fit for the purpose of establishing a universal set of outcomes for courses to encourage students to strive for.
Course Designer references a number of guidance/policy documents which LO’s should adhere to; Credit Level Descriptors for Higher Education, QAA Frameworks for Higher Education, Creative Attributes Framework (Currant, Stephens and Staddon, 2019), in addition to LO’s needing to be tracked through different units and stages of a course. In addition to this, BA Architecture must also meet Architects Registration Board Prescription of Qualifications Criteria and the Royal Institute of British Architects Validation Criteria both of which carry equivalents to LO’s for Architecture students to meet. On a personal level it is nearly impossible to reconcile each of these layers of guidance, and I find it extraordinary that those writing the LO’s for the course are able to do so. It is incredible that within such a complex matrix of frameworks there is still opportunity for creativity in teaching, and it is a credit to the dynamism and resilience of arts educators that universities can still offer valuable arts courses.
Addison discusses the use of Critical Historical Activity Theory (Addison, 2014) as a way to refocus education towards the activity of learning rather than outcomes, and recognises that learning through embodied experience, peer/parental/mentor guidance amongst infinite other possibilities, contributes to a student’s education ‘beyond the classroom’. This is far more applicable to arts teaching, where drawing inspiration from a variety of sources is encouraged and enriches outputs. By learning more of the structure and debate around LO’s I can critique their use to hopefully find a more constructive and relevant format for shaping my students’ education. Although this may only happen initially within my personal practice, I hope I can use this to more widely shift perspectives around the use of LO’s.
Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 313–325. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12063.
ARB Criteria (no date) Architects Registration Board. Available at: https://arb.org.uk/information-for-schools-of-architecture/arb-criteria/ (Accessed: 23 February 2024).
Bloom, B. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals,. Longman.
Currant, N., Stephens, T. and Staddon, E. (2019) ‘Course Designer: Crafting Learning Outcomes’.
Validation Procedures and Criteria (no date). Available at: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/validation-procedures-and-criteria (Accessed: 23 February 2024).