In the UK, our higher education system is one that is based on the method of Learning Outcomes, circa 1997 this approach was investigated in The Dearing Report. The Learning Outcome method has many benefits, that can lead to opportunities, but don’t necessarily mean that it is the best way of learning. I was assigned Addison (2014) who wrote ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes’ as the pre-task, and for workshop 3 and 4, we were then assigned further reading. I chose to look at UAL’s policy for designing Learning Outcomes (LO) as this is how I design my workshops. Below, I have written my thoughts on the Addison paper and the critique of LOs.
Ecclestone (1999) states that LOs could create an artificial divide between acquiring practical skills, and understanding the underlying theory, which might discourage critical thinking. For me in my workshop’s I have noticed that LOs encourage student centred learning by empowering students to take ownership of their learning, and allowing them to choose which skills to focus on. This also gives students an opportunity to decide how deeply they should focus on the skill at hand- giving more freedom to take ownership in the long-run.
As courses have to stay relevant- by proxy skills also stay relevant as it encourages educators to update curriculum, based on the latest in-demand skills (Orr 2005). This is where instructors with technical expertise (technicians) can excel, bridging the gap between theory and real-world application.
Although there’s a concern that LOs could lead to a “one-size-fits-all” approach, neglecting the diverse learning styles and neurological differences of students (Atkinson 2008); I believe the key point here would be to design curriculum with intersectionality of learning styles and abilities. Additionally, providing students with a roadmap for learning, could create a sense of progress and parity, as students see the connection between effort and assessment. They would also be taught according to their skill level, as I normally separate my workshop by ability.
Some argue that LOs might hinder a teacher’s ability to be responsive in the classroom (Hussey and Smith 2003). They might miss spontaneous “teaching moments” that could enrich student learning. Nonetheless, I have observed in my workshop clear learning objectives actually help identify students who need extra support.
Furthermore, critics argue that LOs might overlook the political aspects of education (Osberg and Biesta 2010). This is particularly relevant for UAL, which has a focus on decolonising the curriculum. LOs might not adequately address issues of power, social justice, and cultural context in learning. This could easily be tackled by having a discussion before the technical task at hand. I do this within all of my workshops, as I want all my students to develop their critical thinking abilities.
In conclusion, the Learning Outcomes (LO) methodology is the ideal for educational progress, fostering inclusivity, democratic access, and relevance; bridging the gap between academia and Employability.
(Word count 485)
References.
Addison, N. (2014). Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), 313-325.
Atkinson, D. (2008) Pedagogy against the state, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 226–40
Central Saint Martins (2019) Museum & Study Collection: Judy Willcocks Copenhagen Presentation. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3O7MM5WuFo
Ecclestone, K. (1999) Empowering or ensnaring: the implications of outcomes-based assessment in higher education, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 29–48
Hussey, T. & Smith, P. (2003) The uses of learning outcomes, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 357–68
Orr, S. (2005) Transparent opacity: assessment in the inclusive academy, in C. Rust [Ed.] Improving Student Learning: Diversity and Inclusivity. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, pp. 175–87
Osberg, D. & Biesta, G. (2010) Complexity Theory and the Politics of Education. Rotterdam: Sense