Unravelling the assumptions in learning outcomes

In a previous post I described a specific study that we are currently undertaking in the ‘Learning Outcomes Project’ that aims to explore frameworks regarding how student involvement in developing learning outcomes (LOs) could occur and what type(s) of LOs support collaborative student/tutor development  (e.g. content-based ones, broader ones, those that are more specific or tightly focused, etc).  I also mentioned that this study has been included within the Higher Education Academy’s (HEA) Strategic Enhancement Programme, as part of the ‘Engaged Student Learning’ strand.   As I stated in that post, our place within this programme means that we benefit from developing networks with colleagues in other institutions who are also concerned to enhance student engagement within areas of their own practices.

I recently attended the second network meeting of this strand in which we were encouraged by the HEA to reflect on some of the assumptions that we might be making within our projects.  This reflection was to help us critically think about our own thinking towards our projects.  For example, are we engaging in stereotypical thinking (i.e. students won’t be motivated to be engaged in the project, students will find it difficult to talk about their learning) or are we putting limits on our projects (i.e. it will have to be small-scale because staff will see the project as adding to their workloads)?  It was a useful activity to engage in, and it further made me think about assumptions that might be being made within the topic of learning outcomes as a whole.  I have been doing some thinking around this as part of our study because, ironically, the study started with one big assumption – that students will want to be involved in developing LOs.  Our study initially began from the starting point of aiming to find out how effective student involvement could occur.  But we soon realised that we needed to take a big step back and ask the question first – do students want to be involved?  This led me to think if there were any other assumptions we might be making, which led on to thinking about assumptions that are being made within the topic as a whole.  And there are a few.  Below is a list (in no particular order) I’ve come up with so far based on my reading and knowledge of much of the published and ‘grey’ literature concerning LOs:

Assumptions:

• Students know what LOs are and what they are for
• Students know that LOs are written for them
• LOs are clear and meaningful to students
• Students refer to LOs
• Students need LOs to know what is expected of them
• LOs are student-centred tools

Now, anyone who is familiar with the published literature concerning LOs will know LOs are a contentious issue and many scholars debate some of the points I have listed above.  I acknowledge that.  However, much of the ‘grey’ literature consists of web resources that offer mainly guidance about how to write LOs and implement the approach within courses and programmes.  Within this guidance is a general acceptance of LOs as an educational approach, and institutions reinforce this acceptance with their widespread adoption of them and their staff development courses that offer the same guidance to new academics about why LOs should be used and how they should be written.  It is within this guidance and acceptance of LOs that the above assumptions are made.

Our research in the ‘Learning Outcomes Project’ has already made clear that some of these assumptions do not hold up.  For example, our recent paper ‘Learning about learning outcomes: the student perspective’ showed that LOs can be very unclear to students and far from meaningful.  Despite an almost universal focus on Bloom’s taxonomy to find the appropriate active verbs to be used in the LO statements, some students reported to us that they can still struggle to understand from their LOs the depth of learning that is required from them.  Our further work in this particular HEA study is also unravelling some of the other assumptions:

• Students know what LOs are and what they are for

We are finding that this is not necessarily the case.  In a recent focus group the students asked me to define exactly what LOs are and what they are written for because the students had never been explicitly told.

• Students know that LOs are written for them

Again, not necessarily.  Many students in the same focus group considered LOs to be administrative tools, there to serve an administrative purpose rather than be a learning tool for them.  Our paper presented a similar finding from the larger sample of students investigated in that study.

• Students refer to LOs

We have spoken to a lot of students over the course of the ‘Learning Outcomes Project’ so far and predominantly we are finding that the majority of students do not refer to their LOs, or only very rarely.  Some students do, but these tend to be when LOs are made an explicit part of their learning experience, e.g. the tutor refers students to them or refers specifically to them in lectures or seminars.  When LOs are written, put into a module handbook (or similar document) and left for students to find and review, our findings would suggest that the LOs will be very rarely reviewed or referred to by most students.

• LOs are student-centred tools

Whilst there are many critics of LOs, there are also many supporters who argue that LOs reinforce the shift to student-centred learning and, as such, are a student-centred learning tool.  Based on what I have reported above, this assumption looks weak too.  If many students do not recognise LOs as being written for them or serving their needs, and do not refer to them, it is difficult to support the student-centred notion.  I have also argued many times in previous posts that this student-centred notion of LOs is weak if students have no role in developing or refining them (either for themselves or for following cohorts).

In our current study we are going to continue exploring some of these assumptions with the view to understanding more about whether students want to be involved in developing LOs, and how this could effectively occur.  I will as ever keep readers updated with our progress.  In the meantime, I would be very interested to hear any other assumptions being made that I may have missed – please do leave me a comment.