{"id":307,"date":"2014-09-11T07:20:08","date_gmt":"2014-09-11T07:20:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/?p=307"},"modified":"2025-02-26T13:24:00","modified_gmt":"2025-02-26T13:24:00","slug":"uncapital","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/2014\/09\/11\/uncapital\/","title":{"rendered":"Uncapitalised ‘learning outcomes’: the tutor and student’s friend"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Happy<\/a><\/p>\n

It’s always a nice moment when you come across an article, conference paper, blog post, etc in which the author(s) expresses similar\u00a0views on a topic\u00a0to the ones that you’ve been\u00a0stating for some time, particularly if those views are possibly not the most popular or common ones.\u00a0 It’s a nice moment because you feel a sense of vindication – a sense of ‘yes, someone else thinks this too so I am on the right track and should keep pursuing it’.\u00a0 I had this sense of vindication when I came across this blog post called ‘In defense of\u00a0learning outcomes’<\/a>\u00a0by Roopika Risam.\u00a0 I would say that many of my previous blogs posts have been, in essence,\u00a0about defending learning outcomes and arguing that they can be (if not already) a meaningful approach to enhance and support student learning.\u00a0 What was particularly great about reading Roopika Risam’s blog post was that it seemed to sum up in a nutshell everything that I’ve been arguing – and\u00a0her arguments are based on her own practical experiences with learning outcomes rather than\u00a0abstract ideas\u00a0or opinions.<\/p>\n

\"Yes\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Whilst I encourage readers to read her post in full, I want to here just pick out a few points that she makes that are particularly significant to me.\u00a0 In a previous blog post I stated that:<\/p>\n

My aim within the ‘Learning Outcomes Project’ is not to present one view about learning outcomes (e.g. that they are either good or bad for student learning). Instead, it has always been to present and engage in all arguments and debates about learning outcomes and try to find a position within them from which I can authentically move the project forward.\u00a0 <\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This open stance has been integral to the success of the ‘Learning Outcomes Project’ so far.\u00a0 It would be dishonest of me to say, though, that it has not caused certain challenges or tensions to me, particularly at the start of the project.\u00a0 Let me try to explain – at the start of the project I was trying to find the particular position that I took towards learning outcomes.\u00a0 This was more of a challenge than it may seem because I could identify with and understand both sides of the arguments about learning outcomes that are commonly put forward.\u00a0 I sincerely believed that they could be a useful and enriching learning tool for students, but I could also understand the ambivalance of some academics towards learning outcomes and their concerns that these type of outcomes support a neoliberal agenda and reinforce instrumentality.\u00a0 To some extent I felt that, for a while, I was going backwards and forwards between the arguments.\u00a0 My previous blog posts will, I hope, show that I have resolved this tension and have\u00a0found a position from which I can authentically argue\u00a0for the potential of learning outcomes\u00a0to support and enhance\u00a0student learning.\u00a0 What particularly struck me when reading Roopika Risam’s blog post was that she offers a way of thinking about learning outcomes that I think would have helped me to resolve this tension earlier.\u00a0 Essentially, Risam differentiates between capitalised ‘Learning Outcomes’ and uncapitalised ‘learning outcomes’:<\/p>\n

The learning outcomes I\u2019m describing aren\u2019t the capitalized \u201cLearning Outcomes\u201d of corporate eduspeak…We would do well to be suspicious of education pundits, standards-makers, and Orwellian-titled foundations claiming that Learning Outcomes are the solutions to the problems plaguing K-12 and liberal arts education alike…Learning Outcome solutionism has bred justifiable concern about the relationship between neo-liberalism and assessment. As such, the phrase \u201cLearning Outcome\u201d bears a whiff of instrumentality…<\/em><\/p>\n

…Yet, the humble, uncapitalized \u201clearning outcome\u201d is a professor\u2019s friend. If you prefer, think of them as course \u201cgoals\u201d or \u201cobjectives.\u201d These statements, articulated on a syllabus, provide important signposts for our students. They signal that we have thought through our commitment to our craft.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I like the differentiation that she illuminates here because it shows the different levels at which learning outcomes can operate and as such, allows us different concepts of learning outcomes that we can reject and\/or critique, or embrace and integrate within our teaching practices.\u00a0 I agree that capitalised ‘Learning Outcomes’ deserve our caution and suspicion\u00a0– I have commented in a previous blog post <\/a>how the current neoliberal (economic) focus of HE reinforces performative learning outcomes.\u00a0\u00a0It is within the\u00a0uncapitalised concept of\u00a0‘learning outcomes’ that the true potential lies\u00a0for this approach to be both the professor and student’s friend.\u00a0 It is the uncapitalised ‘learning outcomes’ that I believe tutors can embrace to provide a framework\u00a0that will\u00a0support\u00a0their teaching activities rather than straightjacket or constrain them.\u00a0 Many of my previous blog posts discuss in more detail how learning outcomes could be used in this way:<\/p>\n

\"Computer\"<\/a><\/p>\n