Reflections on ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What is the recurring problem?’ Allan Davies, Independent consultant

I think this article raises really interesting questions about the use of learning outcomes and assessment criteria and the way that they can shape education, or the opposite, be ignored. From my own background in Further Education, it reminds me of the endless arguments about the use of SMART targets, in particular the ‘Measurable’ element which, in my view, rendered them completely meaningless in most cases. I was a language teacher so ‘Describe a place, using 3 adjectives correctly.’ was a common target. The only reason to do this is to meet the needs of a poorly designed exam paper.

I am torn because I have rarely, if ever, seen a matrix of assessment criteria which has sufficient nuance to make it meaningful on any course I have taught on or studied. On the other hand, as a student on this course, I want to know how we will be assessed and what we are aiming for in terms of criteria, and in more detail than is included in the learning outcomes.

‘Our obsession with establishing the accuracy/clarity of learning outcomes in the belief that this an essential prerequisite for quality learning to take place is undermined by those courses in which the written learning outcomes are largely unclear but the students are performing well.’

I am interested in this quote from the article because it immediately makes me feel that the institution has missed a key element of their responsibility, or at least there is a good chance that they have. Why are the learners ‘performing well’, are they sufficiently challenged? Are they all doing well, or just the learners who are comfortable and familiar in the particular art and design environment? What about everyone else? I feel there is a big possibility that this is working for everyone on the inside, not so much for anyone trying to get in.

However, Davies goes on to say:

‘Indeed, learning outcomes, ambiguous or otherwise, appear to be no substitute for established learner support systems and other frameworks that help students understand what they have to do in order to successfully complete a programme of work… It is during these supportive scenarios that art and design students formulate their intentions and actions and come to understand what ‘imagination’, ‘creativity’, ‘risk-taking’, etc, (the very terms regarded as potentially ambiguous) actually mean for them.’

I fully agree that there needs to be an ‘established learner support’ system and that learners really understand what is required of them through actual teaching, workshops, interactions and tutorials. I also agree that without this, the LOs and assessment criteria as completely useless. However, I still worry that this is too much left to chance in a large university with many HPLs who may or may not be fully briefed on the overall plan for the course and how everything fits together.

Davies also writes:

‘Only the course designers have a real understanding of how things fit together. New or part-time teachers, for instance, have to take the module outlines at face value and make sense of them in terms of their own professional experience.’

I think this leaves too much to chance. So I agree that LOs and assessment criteria are nowhere near enough, but I think in the writing and wrangling out of them, the real work is done in terms of demystifying what is required and desired and what everyone is talking about. It stops it from being magical and mystical and unattainable except for the few, and turns it into something students can really run with, a springboard for something new.

I couldn’t agree more with the comment, ‘Rather than measurability, the focus should be on meaningfulness.’ And I also like the example Davies uses of the Graphic Design course and the reference to the ‘spiral’ nature of learning.

‘The following scale is indicative and will vary depending on the nature and nuances of the discipline. Again, the categories are nested with each one incorporating the one below it. The hierarchy is based on students’ abilities to integrate their thinking and progressively apply their thinking and abilities to more elaborate contexts. The scale can be applied at all three stages as the context and level of challenge is determined by the stage descriptor.’

I really like the design of the scale so that it can be applied at all stages (operational simplicity), but that the contexts in which it’s applied add the additional rigour. The incorporation of lower categories within the higher levels is much more realistic and applicable to actual learning and teaching.

In short I think the creation or devising of outcomes, aims, assessment criteria and contexts (briefs) are all essential to the teaching team in understanding what they are trying to do. They add a layer of transparency between themselves and then for the students. It is a necessary rigour. On the other hand, the tools and constraints within which this is done often defeats the object and provides little help to the students or direction to the staff. If a course is well devised with an experienced and collaborative teaching team who welcome in the learners, this might work well in any case. If not, there is a lot of space for students to feel confused, uncertain and let down.

Reference:

Davies, A (2012) Learning outcomes and assessment criteria. What’s the recurring issue? Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem (Accessed 19 Jan 2023)