Benefits:
It can be used to articulate what is required from a student as they navigate a particular instance of learning, whether that is at course level or unit level. Outcomes-based learning design allows for criterion-referenced assessment, giving students more ownership over their journey and path to improvement as opposed to norm-referenced assessment (Davies, 2002). In an ideal sense, they help students understand how they are being assessed based on: what they have achieved (outcomes) and the level to which they have they have achieved this (assessment criteria) (Davies, 2002). In this sense there is a clear delineation of function for both learning outcomes and assessment criteria as well as a well defined relationship between the two.
Opportunities:
Within the context of learning outcomes based design is an opportunity for students to support each other. Looking at (Brooks, 2008), it seems there is a desire from students for more forms of peer-led assessment and feedback opportunities. When we put phrases like ‘meeting professional standards’ and ‘demonstrating awareness of’ into learning outcomes, there should equally be ways for students to evidence the (human) interactive qualities of those outcomes. Encouraging students to document forms of peer-led assessment and feedback and further evidence that as learning through their unit and portfolio submissions could be unique opportunity for students to demonstrate their intended and un-intended learning outcomes (Davies, 2002).
Challenges:
Within my own context, I often remind students of their learning outcomes for the unit. This is especially common in Year 1 where these concepts are new and I find it useful to articulate the relationship between learning outcomes and UAL’s assessment criteria. Two challenges I face are:
- Time: Students often treat this as something additional to their studio work and perhaps the verbose nature of the outcome daunts them. I often speak to the students to ask why they aren’t reading the unit outcomes and this is one of the reasons I have gathered.
- Language/Cultural Barriers: Overseas students who do not have the same definitions/understandings of words like ‘creativity’, ‘imagination’, ‘risk-taking’ (Davies, 2012) facing an additional layer of struggle beyond the ambiguity of these terms.
Limitations:
In order for constructive alignment to occur (Biggs, 2003 as cited in Davies, 2012), it seems like there must be a relationship between program content, delivery, student experience and assessment criteria. In this particular context, I would like to focus on assessment criteria and acknowledge that sometimes there are certain barriers to this relationship for teachers. From course handbooks to unit assignments, we are not involved with writing learning outcomes and often to have to resort to the ‘common sense’ prevails way of working (Davies, 2012). In the interest of time, budgets and staffing allocation – I do understand why this occurs. I have often found it really useful to use things like benchmarking sessions to help align ourselves around seeing work through the lens of learning outcomes.
References:
- Davies, A. (2002). Writing learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. City.
- Biggs, JB (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. SRHE & OU Press.
- Brooks, K. (2008) ‘could do better?’: Students’ critique of written feedback, AdvanceHE. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/could-do-better-students-critique-written-feedback (Accessed: 13 March 2024).
- Davies, A. (2012). Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria in Art and Design: What’s the Recurring Problem. Networks, 18(9).