Introduction
I’d like to examine the validity and constructiveness of Learning Outcomes in art and design education by looking at feedback in specifically designed sessions in in my classroom. I shall examine the benefits and deficiencies through a couple of teaching sessions that I have modelled to provide insight on some topics discuss in the academic resources that I have included.
Evaluation
In a text focussed on a critical approach to Learning Outcomes, Nicholas Addison provides a comprehensive investigation:
‘…intend to revisit the literature outlining the differing positions on LOs by constructing a sequence of tables charting their perceived benefits and deficits… working through contradictions by arguing from a theoretical position based on constructivist principles.’
(Addison, 2014)
By specifically focussing on a beneficial point – and the opposite – in curriculum design, I aim to outline the difficulties imposed by how linguistics applied in academia may alienate the learner, contrary to a student-centred approach, rather than a tool providing guidance:
‘Benefits: guarantee transparency, clarity, accessibility and are thus motivational; students know what is expected.‘
‘Deficits: depend on language and transmission, requiring interpretation and negotiation.’
(Addison, 2014)
Transparency is only achieved through the careful choice of language and its transmission, formation and interpretation. In their text on student understanding of assessment standards and criteria, Donovan, Price and Rust (2001) argue the importance of semiotics further:
‘..the very precision of language and terminology progressed explication away from common parlance and, as a consequence (as our research suggested), definitions became less accessible to novice students.’
(Donovan, Price and Rust, 2001)
The problem lies in the accessibility of students – especially international ones – in understanding the Learning Outcomes to navigate their learning journey and achieve an outcome that aligns with the unit submission requirements and objectives.
Moving Forward
To demonstrate an example of the Learning Outcomes from my current unit see figure 1 below.
(figure 1)
In order to clarify the meaning and objectives of the outcomes I intended applying the second of the seven principles of self-assessment and self-regulation into a teaching session (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). This pre-assessment model aims to provide students with skills of self-regulation. The benefits of this approach were evident in an empirical studies reinforcing that:
‘The more learning becomes self-regulated, the more students assume control over their learning, and the less dependent they are on external teacher support.’
(Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004).
Drawing on this approach, I introduced a Make the Grade session earlier than previously in the unit curriculum with the aim to de-mystify the LOs by asking the students to grade themselves. I introduced the session with a lecture including leading questions for the students to respond to which would provide them with clarity on the objectives and expectations. I handed out a resource that I re-appropriated (from the TPP Workshop 2) to my current units LOs (see figure 2). The students were asked to ‘grade themselves’, noting what outcomes and level of dedication would result in which grades. I suggested to start with C, then follow on with an A, D etc. Once finalised, we discussed individual outcomes and any questions that had arisen with regards to the LOs.
(figure 2)
Reflection
I think this was a successful session that provided the students with clarity. The activity model of the presentations revealed the attainment levels of the students and the responses to the activity were generally positive.
As critique, questioning the wording of the LOs, could be linked to the avoidance of accountability in the grading process, implemented by the institution.
Realising the positive impact of the self-regulatory model in pre-assessment, I intend to implement a post-feedback approach, discussed in conducted studies (Taras, 2001, 2002, 2003):
‘..involved students self-assessing after they had received tutor feedback. The results showed that, while both conditions benefited learning, self-assessment with integrated tutor feedback helped students identify and correct more errors..’
(Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006)
The outcome will be a ‘viewing party’ session, much alike a crit structure where the students will have the opportunity to collectively discuss their conceptions, share visual submissions and get feedback from tutors, technical team and peers. This will also be an opportunity to reflect on the work, which will hopefully activate the self-regulatory learning mechanisms.
References
Addison N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’ The International Journal of Art & Design Education
Nicol, David J. and Macfarlane-Dick, Debra (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31: 2, 199 — 218
O’donovan, Berry, Price, Margaret and Rust, Chris (2004) ‘Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria’, Teaching in Higher Education, 9: 3, 325 — 335
Taras, M. (2001) ‘The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks; towards transparency for students and tutors, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 605–614.
Taras, M. (2002) ‘Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education’, 27(6), 501–510.
Taras, M. (2003) To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 549–565.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (2001) ‘Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives’ (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).