For the purpose of this exercise, a set of learning outcomes from a recently taught UAL unit will be critiqued. In order to prepare, I read the relevant reading from workshop 3/4 ‘Writing Learning Outcomes and Assessment’, Allan Davis 2012. I will utilise findings from this within my critique and evaluation. One specific argument I will explore the structure of learning outcomes within art and design courses . ‘Learning outcomes are often written with an emphasis on convergent rather than divergent thinking processes’ (Davis, 2012) – which often can cause conflict in an arts and design based course where areas like imagination must be considered. This will be the core focus of my reflection and evaluation.
The attainment on the unit in question has been disappointing and there has been a discussion amongst the course team if modifications for the Assessment brief are required – specifically with adaption of the learning outcomes to be considered. The full postmortem of the unit has yet to occur but there are aims to dissect and evaluate why increased low attainment and referrals were happening on this unit.
For reference, the learning outcomes of the unit and which will be critiqued are here:
The unit is a group work unit where summative is then an individual report. A fundamental ‘unintended learning outcome’ (Davis, 2012) is in fact collaboration and the art of working together. This is a first-year unit with students who are new and do not know each other. The learning outcomes in their current form do not signpost to any group collaborative working. It is an unintended outcome but as it is not assed in the marking criteria, students historically and perhaps unintentionally, do not see the collaborative process something they should focus on or work towards. This lack of intended learning outcome is problematic as the student experience is often diluted and effected when the group dynamic breaks down and there is poor collaboration.
The other issue with this set of learning outcomes is the predominantly cognitive approach. These LOs are for a marketing plan that is delivered within a fashion marketing course and school. There is an instant assumption from students that an element of creativity and imagination maybe expected from them. This is not the case when looking at these LOs where students may then see that they are mainly being assessed from a cognitive point of view and there is not requirement for experimentation. Which seems at odds with a fashion communication-based course. If we analyse each LO more deeply, we will see that there is a non-divergent approach, which potentially could mean a lack of experimentation or creativity is being explored from students.
LO 1 focus on cognitive outcomes, requiring students to identify tools and how they are used. This is relatively straight forward and allows students to simply recognise the tools that have been tool and effectively apply the. They can then be assessed on the quantity of tools they recognise but also how the application works. This does provide the necessary foundation for understanding the subject and can probably be easily decoded by the students. LO2 focuses again on the cognitive thinking around evaluation of the internal and external environment which does effectively provide students with reasonable direction and ensures they become knowledgeable in their subject.
It is LO3 and L4 that potentially could be revaluated to accommodate more divergent thinking. LO3 is mapped against the marking criteria of ‘Communication’ – and yet it is still requiring students to think cognitively around systems and frameworks and not necessarily clarity in effective communication tools or professional organisation required within the context of this summative assessment.
In conclusion, there are many issues with the learning outcome assessment method. ‘One negative conclusion that can be drawn is that we will end up teaching and assessing only those outcomes that can be easily measured.’ (Davis, 2012) – which is the case with these particular set of LOs. If treated in isolation, they are written and framed within their guidance. But their focus on cognitive outcomes does not provide students with the necessary skills that should be acquired during this unit. Unintended outcomes around teamwork – or perhaps and adjustment to an intended outcome on teamwork that could be mapped to process – would benefit the students overall learning. But would also perhaps unconsciously motivate them to improve their ability to collaborate with each other and therefor increase unit participation and hopefully attainment.
References
Writing Learning Outcomes and Assessment, Allan Davis, 2012