This reflection addresses Learning Outcomes, their emergence and relationship to a neoliberal, market orientated agenda and the tensions in implementing the ‘technocratic ideology of learning and assessment’ in art and design courses (Davies, 2012, p. 4).
Nicholas Addison (2014) highlights the intention of LOs to centre student learning and inclusivity but criticises their limited ability to develop creative responses. He highlights the alternative model of cultural, historical, activity theory (CHAT), rooted in Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) theories, which stress student development as continuous becoming and the tutor as a more knowledgeable guide in a process of learning through proximity, interactions and internalisation. The model applies to studio-based arts education and addresses concerns that LOs fail to respect HE staff integrity. The description resonates with that of group and informal mentoring (Lunsford et al., 2017).
Allan Davies (2012) focuses on similar shortcomings of LOs, also highlighting Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, which shaped the generic and universal qualities of LOs. Davies notes that ‘[i}n the search for accuracy and “clarity”…paradoxically, the more the landscape becomes ambiguous’ (2012, p. 6). He highlights other ways students understand requirements and stresses the need for a clear relationship between expectations placed on students, course content, delivery, and assessment. John Biggs (2007) discusses this as constructive alignment. Drawing of Biggs (2003 [1992]), Davies (2012) advocates a nested hierarchy model for assessment criteria, in which each grade builds on the previous one, indicated by overlapping terminology.
My teaching is within design institutions, sometimes with practice based students, where practice can mean anything from bespoke tailoring to journalism, and sometimes for students enrolled on an academic MA course. The type of sustained relationship Addison (2014) and Davies (2012) discuss, isn’t possible in my department. Cultural and Historical Studies is separated, outside a ‘school’ within UAL. This is reflected in the high level of HPL and part-time staffing, which is rarely understood by students and may contribute to a sense of discontinuity.
As a framework for parity (Addison, 2014), LOs enabled me to assess work without prior knowledge of course or students. Following the above, I understand LOs as a mechanism of the neoliberal model from which I currently benefit, but which sustains the precarity of my employment. I see LOs as a symptom and target of critique, but it is rather the employment structures that shape student and staff experience.
LOs remain dependent on their author (Addison, 2014). Some are clearer and more balanced than others. I find simpler LOs matched to only one grade criteria, the most effective. This shapes my limited opportunities to write them. LOs usually come with briefs, which may be instructive or inspirational and assessment is moderated, points missed in the articles above. Holistically, there is space for staff and student creative interpretation, destabilising claims that LOs are universalising. This is also stressed by Biggs’ (2007) emphasis on the verbs of LOs, which promote active student engagement, rather than a concretised intended outcome. Understanding the construction of LOs and explicit discussion of ambiguities, alignment and criteria, directs my future approach to discussing them with students, prompting me to offer examples of my interpretation when I am the principal assessor and have opportunities to do so.
Bibliography
Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, in The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3) pp. 313-325.
Biggs, J. B. (2003 [1992]) Teaching for quality learning at University. Society for Research in HE and Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (2007) ‘Using constructive alignment in outcomes-based teaching and learning’, in Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. S-k (eds.) Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp. 50-63.
Bloom, B. (1956) A taxonomy of cognitive objectives. New York: McKay.
Davies, A. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’, in Networks, 18, July, University of Brighton, Faculty of Arts, online. Accessed 25th February 2025 <http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem>
Lundford, L. G., Crisp, G., Dolan, E. L. and Wuetherick, B. (2017) ‘Mentoring in higher education’, in Clutterbuck, D. A. and Kochan, F. K. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring. London: Sage.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.